Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Endravath Mahesh

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/401/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs. 48,56,126.67 incurred by a sole defendant who remained in ex-parte default. Evidence marked by the bank clinched the claim, leading to an order for payment, realization from hypothecated security, and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 48,56,126.67 plus future interest at 11.90% p.a. from 08.02.2026; claim secured by hypothecated vehicle; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Endravath Mahesh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RO DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAI4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORiGINAL APPLICATION No: 401 OF 2026

¶5

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

¶6

......Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Endravath Mahesh S/o lvl r. Endravath Venkatram; Age: 23 Years; Occ: Business; R/ot 2-5-34/MT17 08, cPR Mahadev, Upperapally, Pillar No. 201,

¶9

Attapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500030; And also reside at 14r. Endravath l4ahesh S/o 14r. Endravath Venkatram, R/o 2-106, VTC-Inole, Sub Distrlct, Mahabubnaqar District, Telanga na State - 509375 Defenda nt

¶10

: I\4s. D. Bala Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-parte

¶12

:: ORDER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 48,56,126.67 ps as on 04.02.2026 from the sole defendant with future interest @^11.90ot/o p.a. with monthly ,,/ ,tllwmz^{/ /$9v} . ,y^*

¶14

oA.NO.401/2026

¶15

rests from 08.02.2026 till the date of^{realizationalong with} costs, and in default, sale of OA^{hypothecated vehicle.}

¶16

Summons served on Sole^{Defendantand was set exparteon} t8.06.2026 as called absent and no^{representation.}

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined^Ms. T.^{Prathima, ChiefManager,} as AW-1 and marked 20 documents^{through him as Ex.A.1 to} Ex.A.20.

¶18

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

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:^-

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank^is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA^hy?othecated vehicle?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained^ex-parte.The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals^{in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to A.20 marked on behalf of the^{ApplicantBank} 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^{futureinterestand costs.}

¶22

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.401/2026is} allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to^{pay to the} Appricant Bank a *r. or,rffii^ril,,n

¶24

oA.NO.401/2026

¶25

future interest @ 11.90o/o^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 vehicle as described in^the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against} the same to realise its debU

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^propertiesof 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 within2 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} this the 23'd Day ofJune,^2026).

¶32

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Endravath Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Endravath Mahesh

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