Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Panuganti Balraj

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/400/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In DT-I Hyderabad, the Presiding Officer allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda. The court accepted the bank's unopposed claim of Rs. 36,86,480.51, ordered future interest, and secured the debt against hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 36,86,480.51; future interest at 11.90% p.a.; costs; sale of hypothecated vehicles; directions against defendant's person and properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Panuganti Balraj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH, RANIESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 400 OF 2026

¶4

Bank of Baroda Boinpally Branch, Secunderabad, T.S., Represented by its Branch Manager & GPA Holder

¶5

......Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Panuganti Balraj S/o Mr. Panuganti Renaiah Aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H. No. 8-2-370, R/14 & 15, Flat No. 301,2nd Floor, Idea Heritage, Banjara Hills, Raghavendra Colony Road No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034

¶8

And a lso resident at

¶9

lvlr. Panuganti Balraj S/o 14r. Panuganti Renaiah R/o. f-75/3, Singavaram, VTC: Singavaram, PO: Penimilla, Sub District: Achampet, District: Mahabubnagar, Telangana State - 509376 .....Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Ivls, D. Bala Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-parte

¶11

:: O-LQ-L& ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 36,86,480.51^ps as on 08.02.2026 from the sole defendant with future interest @ 11.90olo^p.a. with monthly Zrvn - .r

¶13

/ ./^r' s\r^)-' ,/ ?Jr '^'

¶14

oA.NO.400/2026

¶15

rests from 08,02.2026^{till the date of reatizationalong with} costs, and in default,^{sale of OA hypothecated vehicles'}

¶16

Summons served on^{Sole Defendantand was set exparteon} 18.06.2026 as^{called absent and no representation'}

¶17

The Applicant^{Bank examinedMs. T. Prathima, Chief Manager'} as AW-l and^{marked 20 documents through him as Ex A lto} Ex.A.20.

¶18

Heard Learned Counsel^{for the Applicant. Perused the material} placed on record.

¶19

The^point that arises^{for considerationls: -}

¶20

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim^{made in} the^{OA against} the Defendant and^{OA hYPothecated} vehicles?

¶21

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remainedex-parte' The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitalsin the documents} vlz., Exs.A.1 to A'20^{marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of^{the ApplicantBank againstthe Defendant'} Hence, I hold that the^{Defendant is liable to pay the OA claimto} the Appllcant Bank^{with future interestand costs.}

¶22

In the result, the^{present OrlginalApplication No'400/2026is} allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The sole Defendant is liable^{to pay to the} Applicant Bank a Rs. 36,86,48!'51^{ps with} OY*"

¶24

oA.NO.400/2025

¶25

future interest @ 11.90% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicles as described in the 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 properties of defendant for realization of its dues;

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thisthe23'dDayofJune,2026).

¶32

OW** (RArrrEsHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Panuganti Balraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Panuganti Balraj

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

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Pithani Veera Raju

Hdfc Bank versus Yateesree Marketing

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna