Allowed

M/S. Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Menakshi Con.

DRT5 Feb 2026OA/148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-IIAT Hyderabad, adjudicating an application filed by a Bank against multiple respondents, held the defendants jointly and severally liable for a bank guarantee loan.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are directed to pay Rs.1,00,60,467/- with future interest; Applicant bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties for realization of dues.

M/S. Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Menakshi Con. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN^{THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THE O5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY ' 2026} L'LB'^{(Hons')' M'A'} PRE'ENT:^{sH' RAME'HHSS"ffi;P'3EI^''}

¶2

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATIONNo: 148 OF 2025}

¶3

d$#r=il,#:;*iil:;:' .,...APPlicant'

¶4

Versus

¶5

' rt#H$t,+:$$l1,^z:'' Srinaga

¶6

2.^{Mr' Anil Kumq' Bulll-SJo' B' Pullaiah} ' ff:;,T.t'i,: !E :gi$:'^{ruiu^,::T'} M c H'i';';-;-e^{o1t1tl1/A-B'Plot Nos'} ro 6, t;'"'it, J9l]1'"ddvsuda HYderabad^{- 500073'}

¶7

Mrs'^{Chitturi Pragati'} Plo'^{Dr"C' Nagendra} t'utui,'oged^{Malor'-9tt' Business} Vo'^{nli il"ln e' 2d Floor'Eureka court} M C^{H'No'B-3-9OZlFl11/A-B' Plot Nos'3} To 6,^{sV'rtro 14' Yellareddyguda} HYderabad -^500073'

¶8

...Defendants

¶9

: Mr. M. Srinivas Counsel^{for the APPIicant}

¶10

Defendants : Ex-parte

A<*

oA.No.748/2025

1' The Appricant ".^, -,^Q t' ',,^{* o..,,or',1".111ti:..r]",r oA ror the recoverv;} o,,. * ".^{r, n, u,i o o} rii, :,: "::r,^{,u o,u,.u n,, iou"nro,,o,u,} ]l]1,",,,^{,,n,, ",,,1",1.:i,,i""...,r",,i ; i,;".":.J} rrom the dare or _app/jcation^{tjr the date} ";;::,:::.r.a. with .or,, u].,,0 ,, default ror sare or oA u"i,. ;ffialong 2. Summons S€rVed on nr .^ were set ",-r""'","',ilo; i::"J'l paper pubiication. rhey representation. "'uo^zu25 as caled absent and no 3. The Applicant Bank examined I and marked,r,^^ ""^{u;^l:le:h,} Lesar Manaser, asAWA.12. -- '< uocuments thrggg6 n,, ". ur. o., ,"i".

¶15

Heard thp r, ^ _ -". Lounsel for fl" material placed ",^{,";. "'rne Applicant Bank.perused the}

¶16

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶17

Whether the Apptk tor the ctaim ilaioTn!??'k '' "",r,"0 ,n" o"i"r,i"r,ilue-^{tn.the oA asainst} Pro4erty?^{and oA schedule}

¶18

As stated supra, the Defen remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affldavit coupled *,,,'untt the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.12 marked cr inches the cra i m or the orri.# ffffj j::,[,,]:il:"'il:

¶19

Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severa y tiabte craim t"tn.' aoofiSk{vith ruture interest ::i::,:::oA

¶20

¶21

oA.NO.148/202s

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.14812025 is allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.t,00,60,467/- towards Bank Guaranty Loan Facility A/c, No.75790600000976 with future interest @15.50o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶25

iii) the applicant bank is also entifled 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

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶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 05th Day of February, 2026).

¶30

, ,r.a,. ..,...,

¶31

..:-

¶32

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Menakshi Con.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Menakshi Con.

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Vasavi Print Links.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Joe Varghese Padasssari

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Rn Traders.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Rsl Groups

Chittajallu Sudha versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mohammed Shanawaz