Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Raj Trading

DRT19 Jun 2026OA/286/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application by the Bank of Baroda. The defendants were absconding. The evidence affidavit and documents clinched the bank's claim. The defendants are liable to pay the dues with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 89,47,275/- with future interest; recoverable from OA schedule and person properties; costs awarded.

Bank of Baroda versus Raj Trading — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 286 OF 2026

¶5

Bank of Baroda, I!1.G. Road, Secunderabad Branch, Hyderabad, Rep by its Principal Officer And Branch Manager

¶6

......Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Raj Trading

¶9

Rep. by Mr. Pacchamatla Laxman^Raju S/o Mr. P Krishnam Raju

¶10

H.No.1-50/1, Jagadevpur Mandal

¶11

Chinna Kistapur, Medak,^Telangana -⁵⁰²³⁰¹

¶12

Mrs. Sanagasetty Bhavani, Wo^{Mohan Vamsi} #4-7-9126/t, Road No.5,

¶13

Near lohnson Grammer School, Indira Nagar, UPPal, KV Rangareddy Telangana - 500076

¶14

....Defendants

¶15

: Ivlr. N. V. Subbaraju Counsel for the Applicant

¶16

Counsel for the Defendants

:Ex-Darte Ox"'

oA.NO.286/2025

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. A9,47,275/- from defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally with future interest @ llo/o p.a. along with 4o/o p.a. of penal interest with monthly rests from 06.01.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of O.A. schedule moveable and immoveable assets/ properties.

¶21

Summonses served on Defendants 1 & 2 and were set exparte on 18.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applica nt Bank examined Mrs. Kirti Lanjewar, Assistant

¶23

l4anager, as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through them as

¶24

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13.

¶25

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the material placed on record.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and O.A. schedule moveable and immoveable assets/ properties?

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidehce Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.13 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and cost

¶29

ffi6.rt

¶30

oA.N0.28612026

¶31

In the result, the^present Original Application No.28612026 allowed as under:^-

¶32

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 89,47,275l- with future interest @ 9.L5o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of Schedule-A assets and mortgage of Schedule-B^properties, as described in the schedules annexed to the^OA and applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same for realisation of dues;

¶34

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

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order^{to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronouncedby open court on this the 19tn Day of June,^2026).

¶39

Hrblni wAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Raj Trading

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Raj Trading

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

State Bank of India versus Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Voodi Sravani

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., versus M/s. Fast Dot

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Malgi Reddy Govardhan Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Vijeka Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Ramesh Engineering Enterprises