Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Gouni Siva Laxmi

DRT23 Jul 2026OA/131/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT granted relief to Bank of Baroda in an ex-parte original application. The court held the defendant liable to pay Rs. 23,34,983/- with future interest and costs, allowing the bank to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.23,34,983/- with future interest and costs; applicant bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Gouni Siva Laxmi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RO DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 131 aF 2026

¶4

Ba nk of Ba roda., (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank), lubilee Hills Branch, Film Nagar, Hydera bad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Appllcant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lvlrs. Gouni Siva Laxmi, W/o. Mr. G. Nageshwar Goud, Major, Female, R/o.5-3-87, Babaiah Goud Bullding, Gowtham Nagar, Saheb Nagar Road, Va nasthalipuram, Hyderabad- 500070.

¶8

... Defendant

¶9

: Mr. Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for the Applicant Defendant : Ex-pa Ex-pa rte

¶10

: Ex-pa Ex-pa rte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.23,34,983/- from the defendant with future interest @8.90olo^p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 22.07.2026 as called absent and no representation. "l${i'.rt

¶14

"l${i'.rt

¶15

oA.NO.131/2026

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined K. Raju, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.09.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

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

¶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.09 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 ciaim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.131/2026 is allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.23,34,983/- with future interest @8.95o/o 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 vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to qfoceed against the same to realise its debvOWO*

¶24

oA.NO.131/2026

¶25

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

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23^d Day of July, 2026).

¶30

, }|.,* _ 1{^{'A'ff;tl.rr</sup>}

¶31

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESiDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Gouni Siva Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Gouni Siva Laxmi

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Palem Anil Kumar

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Likith Projects Private Limited

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Kethavath Limbya

State Bank of India versus Smt. Pingula Kumari

Surendar Adapa versus Authum investment and infrastructure limited

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Muppala Sudha Rani