Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Pidathala Ramadasu

DRT9 Mar 2026OA/1088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 46,97,421.17 plus interest against a defaulting defendant appearing ex-parte, holding the claim valid based on examined evidence and recorded documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendant jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 46,97,421.17 with interest; recovery from hypothecated assets and personal properties; costs awarded.

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Pidathala Ramadasu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com.^{L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1088 OF 2025

¶4

Bank of Baroda, Nandyal Branch Nandyal, lvanoylt District Rep by its Authorised Officer

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Pidathala Ramadasu S/o. Sri. Pidathala Chinna Pullaiah, Aged 59 yrs, Male, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.8-171, Palukur Village, Rama Krishna Puram, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal Dist., A.P. ...Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-parte

¶9

:: ORDER ::

¶10

The Applicant Bank flled the^present OA^{for the recovery a total} sum of Rs. 46,97,42L.17^ps with^{future interest} @10.80o/o^p.a. from the date of filling the application till^{the date of realization} along with costs and, in default,^{sale of OA hypothecated asset.}

¶11

Summon served on Sole Defendant and was set xpafte on 09.03 .2026 as called absent and no representati

¶12

oA.NO.108812025

¶13

3, The Applicant Bank examined Mr. V. Chandraiah, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 6 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6.

¶14

Heard ex-pafte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant Bank. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶15

The point that arises for consideration is:^-

¶16

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated asset?

¶17

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.6 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶18

In the result, the present Original Application No.10BB/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶19

i) The Sole Defendant is^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 46,97,421.L7 ps with future interest @10.80o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶20

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of asset as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to reatise its deblfrffq

¶21

'/ *5^-

¶22

oA.NO.1088/202s

¶23

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant for realization of its dues;

¶24

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶25

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶26

Issue Recovery Cediflcate accordingly.

¶27

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶28

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 91h Day of March, 2026).

¶29

,/r1y;^lnvN* (RATTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Pidathala Ramadasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Pidathala Ramadasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Jagannath Industries

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Pampari Ashwini

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Bachalakura Raveenender

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Priyanth Rao Nallapally

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pidathala Maheswari

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pidathala Eswaramma