Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Prakerla Sandeep

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/251/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery. With the defendant remaining absent, the tribunal held the bank entitled to the claimed loan amount, future interest, costs, and right to realize dues via hypothecated assets and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 20,08,969.53 plus future interest and costs; bank entitled to realize dues via hypothecated assets and defendant's personal properties; recovery certificate to be issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Prakerla Sandeep — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 251 OF 2026

¶4

Bank of Baroda., Atta pur Branch, 3-4-774/72, Penusila Complex, Near Pillar No.140, PVNR Express Way, Attapur, Hydera bad^-500048. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Prakerla Sandeep, S/o. P Venubabu Aged about 33 Years, occ: Employee R/o. Flat No.G8, Vasavi Central Court czech Colony, Opp. FCI, Sanath Nagar Hyderabad - 500018.

¶8

... Defenda nt

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : 1.4r. G. Venkat Sri Maithreya

Defendant

: Ex-Pa rte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a^total sum of Rs.20,08,969.53ps towards Loan A/c.^No. 32890600003459 from the defendant with future^interest @10.95%^p.a. with^{monthlyrestsfrom the dateoF application} till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated asset.

¶14

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte^on 27.O4.2026 as called absent and no rep res.entation. ry',,r .^r '- i1(''-

¶15

oA.NO.2s1l2026

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Bheem Reddy Swarupa, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through^him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.06.

¶17

Applicant right of arguments is forfeited vide docket order dated 28.04.2026 for no representation.^Perused the^material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated asset?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.06 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant 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.

¶21

In the result, the^present Original Application No.25112026 is allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.20,08,969.53ps towards Loan A/c. No. 32890600003459 with future interest @8.95olo p.a. simple from the date of appllcation till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of asset dg.g:ribed in the ffi*'u

¶24

oA.NO.2su2026

¶25

¶26

schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶29

The Applicant Bank is directed^to file^{Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶30

o Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, si8ned and pronounced by me in the open^{court on} this the 281h Day of aPRlt,^2026).

¶32

/)Y*** (RAl4EsHwAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Prakerla Sandeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Prakerla Sandeep

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.

Karre Radha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Naresh Banothu

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Laxminarayana Narasimulu Palakurki

Union Bank of India versus Amma Petroleum Company.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Manopadu Swamy