Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ooha Traders and Ors.

DRT9 Jul 2026OA/233/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Origination Application filed by Bank of Baroda, permitting recovery of principal and interest through sale of hypothecated movables and enforcement actions against guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Allowed application; ordered respondents to pay Rs.48,93,423 plus interest; authorized sale of hypothecated movables and action against persons of guarantors for realization.

Bank of Baroda versus Ooha Traders and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED TH]S THE Ogth DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADT GOPICHAND, PRESID|NG OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 233 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Khammam Trunk Road Branch At no. 4-2-5011, Gandhiganj, Khammam, Telangana - 507003 Represented by its Senior Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Ooha Traders Rep. By its Sole proprietor Vaddalapu Ooha, D/O. Vaddalapu Rammohan, Havlng Place Of Business At H. NO. 2-100, Naidupeta, Peddathanda,

¶9

Khammam, Telangana - 507003

¶10

Vaddalapu Ooha, D/O. Vaddalapu Rammohan Aged About 30 Years, Occ: R/o. H. NO. 2-100, Naidupeta, Peddathanda, Khammam, Telangana - 50

¶11

(oA. No. 233/2026)

¶12

Vaddalapu Rammohan, S/O. Vaddalapu^yakaiah, Aged About 54^years, Occ: Business R/o. H. NO.2-100, Naidupeta, Peddathanda, Khammam, Telangana - 507003

¶13

Kosuri Nageswar Rao, S/O. K. Venkaiah, Aged About 74^years, Occ: Business, R/O. 4-5-9'1, Grain Market Road, Bijjalavari Thota, Khanapuram, Khammam, Telangana -507002

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the parties :

¶16

For The Applicant G. Venkat SriMaithreya For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on 08.07.2026 Pronounced on 09.07.2026 Upload in website on 09.07.2026

¶17

,-%
i,l r -.<[ o e Jrn zot[ :

¶18

(oA. No. 233/2025)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4g,93,423.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Three Only) i.e a sum of -

¶21

(i) Rs.4't,58,'t58.00 ps. with future rate of interest @14.70oh p.a with monthty rests from 11.02.2026 tilt the date of rea lization

¶22

(ii) Rs.7,35,265.00 Ps. with future rate of interest @16750/0 p.a with monthly rests from 11.02.2026 till the date of realization

¶23

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of property to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor Defendants No. 2 availed secured overdraft Loan facility of Rs.35.00 Lakhs with interest and executed necessary documents such as Composite Hypothecation Ag 3ted^{30.03.2022, in favor} of the Applicant Bank. The and 3 stood as a Guarantor and executed ,m"'; arantee dated 30.03.2022 in favor of the

¶25

(oA. No. 233/2026)

¶26

Applicant Bank. The Defendants avaired secured overdraft Loan facility of Rs.6.00 Lakhs with interest and executed necessary documents in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NPA on 31.03.2025 and issued Loan Recall cum Demand Notice dated 11.02.2026 to the defendants. rnspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶27

¶28

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 2g.06.2026.

¶29

Sri. Chittipeddi R V S N Vinay, Senior Manager & LOA of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

b. The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶32

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the ,^official of the Applicant Bank was relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to *a , I^hold that the Appticant Bank has

¶33

(oA. No. 233/202G)

¶34

established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶35

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

¶36

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.4g,93,423.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Three Only) i.e a sum of -

¶37

(i) Rs.41,58,158.00 ps. with future rate of interest @14.70o/o p.a from 11.02.2026 till the date of realization

¶38

(ii) Rs.7,35,265.00Ps. with future rate of interest @16.75oh

¶39

p.a from 11.02.2026 till the date of realization

¶40

¶41

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of the Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

The App nk is also entitled to proceed against the person of Defendants No. 2 and 3 and pr firm towards realization of the debt due *

¶43

(oA. No. 23312026)

¶44

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

¶45

The Applicant shal fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶46

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 09th day ofJut, 2026)

¶49

ffi<br>t ogJuiln6 :
qe,-r#

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

arW

Bank of Baroda v. Ooha Traders and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ooha Traders and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vijaya Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Venkatamahalaxmi Powerloom Industry

M/s Jay Ess Associate versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Swarooparani Parakala

State Bank of India versus M/S. Royal Industries

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy