Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M s Kvr Plastic Industry

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/181/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda. The court held the defendant liable to pay dues including term loan, cash credit, interest, and costs. Recovery was directed against hypothecated assets and the defendant's properties, and a Recovery Certificate was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 34,50,480.04 with future interest; recovery against hypothecated assets and properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus M s Kvr Plastic Industry — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 181^{OF 2026}

¶4

Bank of Baroda., Shad Nagar Branch,^{RangaReddy District.} Rep. by its Authorized Slgnatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. KVR Plastic^Industry., Represented by its^ProPrietor Mr. sakaramella Ram^{Reddy, S/o. Thippa} Reddy, Udyag^{Aadhar No. UdyamTDS} O9 0049445,^{12-461,Shamshabad} Ranga Reddy^District -^501218'

¶8

Also at:^-

¶9

Mr. Sakaramella^{Ram Reddy} C/o. Resident^{of TummalapurVillage} Narayanpet-M-andal,^Mahabubnaga District -^509210.

¶10

..Defendant

¶11

Counsel^{for the ApPlicant} : Mr' B'^VinayKalyan

Defendant

: Ex-Parte

::^qLLgL::

The^{ApplicantBank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of^{Rs.34,50,480.04ps i'e', Rs'22} '?:9 '249 '^{78ps towards} Term Loan^{and Rs' 12,21,230'26ps towardsCash Credit Facility} from the defendant^{with future interest from the dateof} and in

¶16

application^{till the date of realization} Zmwith \costs default^{for sale of hypothecated assetlr/t} I('r'i'

¶17

oa.No.181/2026

¶18

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex_parte on 22.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Saritha Sharma, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 21 documents through her as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21.

¶20

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

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and oA hypothecatecl assets 2

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.21 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank crinches the craim of the Appricant 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.

¶24

In the result, the present Originat Application No.1g1/2026 is allowed as under: _

¶25

i) tne Defendant is liable to pay to the APPlicant .Bank a total sum of Rs.34,50,480. O4ps i.e., Rs.22,29 ,24g.7lps towards Term Loan and Rs.12,21,230.26ps towards Cash Credit Facility; with future ,//)n9/,.,r\ / / /,/ .1_^'^| "

¶26

¶27

oA.NO.18112026

¶28

interest @10.8olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

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 its debt;

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

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 24th Day ofJune, 20261.

¶35

(RA:F4ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. M s Kvr Plastic Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M s Kvr Plastic Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.