Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Thadakamalla Nagamani

DRT3 Jul 2026OA/208/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Operator's Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of an outstanding loan principal of Rs. 82,19,527 with future interest against two defendants who failed to comply with loan terms.

What did the court decide?

Debt of Rs. 82,19,527 with future interest @10.05% and @10.80% p.a liabilities appended to mortgaged property; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Thadakamalla Nagamani — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O3'd DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESID|NG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 208 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Hyderabad Main Branch, 4-1-36, Hanuman Tekdi, Abids circle, Hyderabad-500001 Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Thadakamalla Nagamani, DiO. T Laxmaiah Aged about 55 years, Occ: Govt Teacher, R/o. Flat no. 301, Shiva Sai Towers, Plot no. 28 &29, Pragathi Nagar Colony, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy Dist-500097

¶9

Akarapu Sai Kiran, S/o. T Nagamani Aged about 37 y R/o. Ftat no. 301^'f,i.:;.., Shiva SaiTowerS, &$ Plot no. 28 &29, :& Pragathi Nagar Cdor&y JUFdppt, -,.r"*.r.,ffi. Defendants

¶10

(OA. No. 208/2026)

¶11

Counsel for the Parties^:

¶12

G. Venkat Sri MaithreYa For The Applicant For the Defendant Exparte 01.07 .2026 Reserved on 03.07.2026 Pronounced on Upload in website^on 03.07.2026

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA against Defendantfor} total sum of^{Rs.82,19,527-O0 Ps. (RupeesEighty} recovery of a Two Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Five^{HundredTwenty} Seven Only) i.e sum of -

¶15

(i) Rs.65,75,068.00 Ps.^{with future rate ofinterest} @10.05%^{p.a with monthly rests from 04.02.2026 till the} date of realization

¶16

(ii) Rs.15,44,459.00 Ps. with^{future rate ofinterest} @10.80%^{p.a with monthly rests from 04'02'2026 till the} of realization t/6/k i,l and default for sale^{of Mortgaged Property} * 0 3 JUL^?l]zfre in the Schedule of^{ProPertY to OA.} ,) 61d

¶17

(oA. No. 208/2026)

¶18

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendants availed Baroda Home loan facility of Rs.67,65,,000/- repayable in EMI's with interest and executed necessary documents such as Loan Agreement dated 20.11.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Tiile Deeds dated 23.11.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Top up loan facility of Rs.16,50,0001 repayable in EMI's with interest and executed necessary documents such as Loan Agreement dated 23.01 .2023 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 18.10.2025 and issued Loan Recall cum Demand notices dated 06.12.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 01 .07.2026.

¶21

Sri. Prem Prakash, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank AS AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, Ex.A.1 to A.16. 74\ * * HTrg tlfrLfi!?pou nbel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

(oA. No. 208/2026)

¶23

The point that arise^{for consideration is whetherthe Applicant} bank is entitled^{for the claim made in the OA against the} Defendants as^{praYed for?}

¶24

¶25

Defendants^{remained exparte. To substantiatethe case of the} Applicant Bank, AW.1,^{official of the ApplicantBank was} examined and^{he exhibited relevantdocuments as Ex A l to} 4.16. ln view of the^{above,I hold that the ApplicantBank has} established their claim^{made in the oA against the Defendants} and hence the Applicant^{Bank is entitledto recover the claim} made in the OA with^{futureinterestand costs.}

¶26

ln the result, the^{presentOA is allowedwith costs, as under:}

¶27

The Defendants^No. 1and2^{are jointly and severally liableto} pay to the Applicant Bank a total^{sum of Rs. 82,19,527'00 Ps'} (Rupees Eighty Two^{LakhsNineteen Thousand Five} Hundred Twenty^{Seven Only)i.e sum of} -

¶28

(i) Rs.56,75,068.00 Ps. with^future rate of interest @10.05%^{p.a from 04.02.2026 till the} date of realization

¶29

(ii) Rs.15,44,459.00 i's. with future rate of interest
p.a from 04.02.2026 till the date of realization
r%<br> 0tJut'f{'$ U - -- h,:
1'". . of^Sz 4
-"""*ft;##

¶30

(oA. No. 208/2026)

¶31

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.

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^{proceed against the person} and properties of Defendants^No. 1and2^{towardsrealization} of the debt due.

¶33

That Applicant Bank is entitled^{to the costs of the OA.}

¶34

The Applicant shall file a cost^{memowithin two weeks from the} date of receipt of order.

¶35

lssue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy^{of the order to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, mrrected,^{signed and pronounced by me in the open courton} this the 03'd day^{ofJul, 2026)}

¶37

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRES!DING OFFICER

¶38

1">lr^,-L REI'ir

Bank of Baroda v. Thadakamalla Nagamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Thadakamalla Nagamani

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. Nandini Powerloom Industry

Indian Bank versus M/S. Auroflow Infra Realty Pvt. Ltd.

Gutha Amith Kumar versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus S.R. Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Ushasri Cotton Ginning Mills Private Limited

Karur Vysya Bank versus D.G. Enterprises