Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises

DRT7 Apr 2026OA/24/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs. 40,06,159 against a partnership firm and individual guarantors. The Court held the bank established its claim and granted recovery, interest, and rights over hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 40,06,159 with interest; affirmation of claim against hypothecated/mortgaged properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate; costs awarded to Applicant.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OTth DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: sRt cuMMADt coptcHAND, pREstDtNG oFFtcER

¶3

OA. No. 24 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Mahabubnagar Main Branch, No.2-2-218, Surya Hospital Building, Telangana X Road, Mahabubnagar - 509 001 Telangana Represented by its Authorized Signatory Applicant VERSUS 1. M/s. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises, Rep. by its Partners, Registered office at - Ram Mandir Chowrasta, Shah Bazar Lane, Old Gunj, Mahabubnagar, Telangana State - S0g 001 Also at - Plot No. 268, Sy. No. 6, Karmanghat, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500 079

¶6

(oA. No. 2412025)

¶7

Mr. Yelishetty Raghavender, S/o. Y. Shankaraiah, Aged 42years. Sex : Male, Occ. Business. R/o. H.No. 1-8411, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar, Telangana - 509 001 3. Mrs. Ramuni Kalyani, Wo. Y. Sreekanth, Aged 34 years, Sex. Female, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-8411, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar, Telangana - 509 001 4. Mrs. Y. Padmavathi, Wo. Y. Shankaraiah, Aged 64 years, Sex. Female, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-8411, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar, Telangana - 509 001 Defendants Counsel for the parties : For The Applicant Mr. Momin Mohammed Rafiq For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 01.04.2026 Pronounced on 07.04.2026 Upload in website sD- ,::: - 07.04.2026

7 APR 2026

(oA. No. 2al2026)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.40,06,159.00 ps. (Rupees Forty Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) being the loan Account with subsequent interest @ g.650/0 p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @2% p.a and other charges and liquidated damages from the date of this OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged^property as mentioned in the Schedule of Properties A and B to OA.

¶14

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a Partnership Firm represented by its Partner Defendants No. 2 and 3 availed cash credit facility of Rs.30,00,0001 with interest @8.65% p.a with monthty rests and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 22.01.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 4 stood as a guarantor and executed General Form of Guarantee daled 22.01.2019 in favor of the Appticant Bank. The Defendant no. 4 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule B to the OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds daled 22.01.2019 in favor of the Appticant Bank and Defendant no. 4 deposited Original Sale Deed No. 74911997 dated 02.04.1997.in favor of the Applicant Bank. After avaiting the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction,. hence,the applicaht bank classified the account as NpA

¶15

l
,,:
,t-
'.
.: .. 1 :;

¶16

(oA. No.2a/2o261

¶17

and issued Legal Notice dated 18.10.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 01.04.2026. Mr. Raja Kukatla, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.17.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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?

¶27

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.17. ln view of the above, I hold that the Appticant 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.

¶28

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

¶29

The Defendants No. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.40,0G,1S9.00^ps. (Rupees Forty Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) being the loan Account with subsequent interest @ 8.65% p.a from the date of this OA till the date of realization. /i1T:\

¶30

,{f"'"''4i'<br>". orrpnm :}I.
l',,* ^c j"t;j

¶31

(oA. No. 24/20261

¶32

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entitted to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties as mentioned in the Schedules of property A and B to the oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

The Applicant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 to 4 and properties of Defendant No. 1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

That Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶36

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

¶37

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of Apr,2026)

¶40

sd/-

¶41

(G. coPtcHAND)

¶42

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

a,'
i,', jt
.1-_.:' r$li
.lj : u", 07 APR
:, :-$
, ... , . *.,-' . .', O3_Jt,

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises

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

Seshadri Agro Industries versus Central Bank of India

Kancharla Swarupa versus Shriram Finance

State Bank of India versus Mr. Venkateswaralu Vipparla

Ujwal Agarwal versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Salasar Ispat Udyog

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bheem Rao Suru Kudmetha