Allowed

Bank of India v. M Ramesh Chary

DRT13 Aug 2026OA/155/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by the Bank of India to recover dues from defendants who defaulted on a housing loan. The court held the bank established its claim through documentation and awarded the principal amount with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants liable to pay Rs. 80,25,315/- with 6.90% p.a. interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of India versus M Ramesh Chary — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFIGER

¶3

OA. No. 155 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of lndia, Asset Recovery Branch, 3rd Floor, PTI Building, A.C.Guards, Masab Tank

¶6

Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana

¶7

Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Mr. Musuloju Ramesh Chary,

¶11

S/o. Padma Chary Musuloju, R/o. H.NO. 1-8-7711, SriSai Nilayam, Alwal, Near Venkateshwara Park, Secunderabad,

¶12

Medchal-Malkajgiri District,

¶13

Telangana State - 500010

¶14

Mrs. Swapna Musuloju,

¶15

Wo. Mr. Musuloju Ramesh Chary,

¶16

R/o. H.NO. 1-8-7711, Sri Sai Nilayam, Alwal, Near Venkateshwara Park, #,# ,F i.;1 Secunderabad, Medchal-Malkajg iri District, Telangana State - 500010 Defendants

¶17

(oA. No. 1ss/2026)

¶18

Counsel for the^{parties :}

¶19

ForTheApplicant	Momin MohammedRafiq
FortheDefendant	Exparte
Reservedon	12.08.2026
Pronouncedon	13.08.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	13.08.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA against Defendants} for recovery of a total sum of^{Rs.80,25,315.00 Ps. (Rupees} Eighty Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three^Hundredand Fifteen Only) with future rate of interest @6.90%^{p.a with} monthly rests along with^penal interest @2o/o^{p.a from the date of} this application till the date of realization^and in^defaultfor sale of Mortgaged Property as^mentioned in the^Scheduleof Property to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant^Bank states that Defendants no. 1 and 2 availed^HousingLoan facility of -' ' Rs.7^{--;:!---r:-.-'.-..} yable in 240 equated monthly ,:^{i1:, --'-} installments 9/6.53352/-r pinl^\wrth interest @6.90%^p.a and rl'ecdssary loan executed ;,,'i'g6'r.ro ui, d""frt\ts such as Agreement^dated oa.oa.zozl,[ Xgreqmen[lfsrtrlame $hn dated 08.06.2 022 in lavor '',.yt,,,. , *.jli W;or1f,,q$,,7&#:9'l

¶23

(oA. No. 1ssl2025)

¶24

of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 27.06.2022 and deposited Original Sale Deed daled 27.06.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.10.2024 and issued Demand Notice dated 06.11.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Legal Notice dated 16.10.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA

¶25

Sri. C. Prabhakar filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendants No. 1 and 2 representation from Defendants No. 1 and 2 side and WS of Defendants No. 1 and 2 not filed and hence Defendants No. 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 12.08.2026.

¶26

Ms. Puwula Shyamala, Assistant Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A.'16.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for licant Bank.

¶28

The point n is whether the Applicant bank is fdr.{thbtt%im e in the OA against the Defenda ffiYed^for? $.,,;,., Cr3+,.-,^o+{o.'t'

¶29

(oA. No. 1ss/2026)

¶30

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examlned and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.16. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to^recover the^claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶31

ln the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as^under:

¶32

The Defendants no. 1 and 2 are^jointly and severally^{liable to} pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.80,25,315.00 Ps. (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand^Three Hundred and Fifteen Only) with future rate^{of interest} @6.90%^{p.a from the date of this application till the date of} realization.

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the^Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to the^OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

The Ap to proceed against the^person and^p o. 1 and 2 towards realization of the de

¶35

(oA. No. 1ssl2026)

¶36

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶37

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶38

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dactated to the P.A., transcribed by her. corrected. signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day ofAug, 2026)

¶41

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRES!DING OFFICER

¶42

s
/,F
,{i .)
; ri -,r rtrmtr6 /'\ =;
.'.{e.6. .+ "$7
'=S;ffitq_,iz

¶43

TRUE--9Opv
{cot nt6rar t[1
AN[.I, HYIERABAD

Bank of India v. M Ramesh Chary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M Ramesh Chary

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Ms Ps Textiles

Mr Avv Narayana and another versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Revanth Textiles

State Bank of India versus Sri Krishna Filling Station

Central Bank of India versus Sri Srinivasa Vastralayam

Chethi Raj Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited