Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. varikuppala prasad

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/126/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte original application, the Recovery Tribunal dismissed the defendant's absence and allowed the bank's claim for recovery of a debt of Rs.39,02,803 with future interest and costs based on uncontradicted documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; defendant to pay Rs.39,02,803 with future interest at 8.15% p.a. simple; recovery certificate issued; entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets.

Bank of Baroda versus varikuppala prasad — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS lNE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFiCER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 126 OF 2026

¶5

Bank of Baroda., Gurramguda Branch, Ranga Reddy District. Rep' by its Authorized signatory'

¶6

"'Appricant'

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Varikuppala Prasad, S/o. Narasimha Aged 33 Years, R/o. H.No.6-23 Malkizgudem, Near Water Tank Yacharam N'landal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

... Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B. Vinay Kalyan Defendant : Ex-Parte

¶11

:: qLLE& ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a^total sum of Rs.39,02,803/- from the defendant with future^interest @11.90olo^p.a. with^{monthlyrestsfrom the dateof application} till the date of realization along with costs and in default^for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant and was set^ex-parteon 10.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examlned G V Subba Rao, Manaqer,^{as AW-} 1 and marked 16 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to^Ex.A.16. Xn]}1.,u!

¶15

oA.NO.125/2025

¶16

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appllcant Bank.^perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The^point that arises for consideration ls:-

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated assets ?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.16 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is Iiable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the present Ortginal Application No.126l2026 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.39,02,803/- with future interest @9.15olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise ts defi;O$6*

¶24

A'No'x26/2026

¶25

¶26

)'[i:]J11:^";llil]l:ll"J:"":' defendants^{for rea\izal} iv)^{16s aPP\icant baflk is entitled for the} Memo^{costs'within 2 weeks}

¶27

rhe^App,icanf ":i::il::?:lJ:::::"* from^{the date} ( lssue^{RecoveryCertificate accordingly'} 9. t'JT"::r"J[:1;unon

¶28

cornmun,:*:,"1i".3;.:,$:[;:i::::"Il..i.ff l"Jni.,"o,^".I"t"tirrne,2026). if,tr^{at'," 24th DaY or rutru' --}

¶29

, ' ..

¶30

'[is,'Jilet?lJ'?

Bank of Baroda v. varikuppala prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. varikuppala prasad

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna

Canara Bank versus M/s. MD Rafi Boiler Poultry Farm

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nehemiah

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.