Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Panuganti Balaraj

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/403/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda against a sole defendant. The court ruled the defendant liable to pay the claimed sum with future interest and costs, and entitled the bank to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant's assets for realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 33,02,272.42 plus future [email protected]%p.a. and costs. Bank entitled to realize dues from hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 23RO^{DAY OF ]UNE, 2026}

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{No: 403 OF 2026}

¶4

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

¶5

......ApPlicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

lvlr. Panuganti Balraju S/o Mr. Panuganti^Reniaiah, R/0. H. No 8-2-310,^{R/14 & 15,} Flat No.301,2nd Floor,^{Idea Heritage,} Ibrahimnagar, Raghavendra^ColonY Road No. 14,^{Banjara hills, Hyderabad,} Telangana - 500034^{and also resident} At Mr. Panuganti Balraju^{S/o Mr. Panuganti} Reniaiah, R/o. 7-7513,^{Singavaram,VTC:} Singavaram,^{PO: Penimilla, Sub District:} Achampet, District:^{Mahabu bnaga r,} Telangana State - 509376

¶8

Defendant

¶9

: Ms. D. Bala Counsel for the Applicant

¶10

Counsel for^the Defendant^{: Ex-parte}

¶11

:: g_LLLL^::

¶12

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs. 33,02,272.42^{ps as on 08.02'2026 from the sole} defendant with future^interest @^{11.90o/o pa with monthly} ,2s9,r..,r$

¶13

///'-:D""

¶14

oA.NO.403/2025

¶15

rests from 09.02.2026 till the date of realization along with costs, and in default, sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶16

Summons served on Sole Defendant and was set exparte on 18.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Ms. T. prathima, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.19.

¶18

4' Heard Learned counser for the Appricant. perused the materiar placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶20

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiiled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated 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.19 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.

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.403/2026 is allowed as under: _

¶23

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a Rs. 33,02u272.42 ps with Ow*

¶24

oA.N0.40312026

¶25

¶26

future interest @ 7l.9Oo/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of rea lization;

¶27

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 debt;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant for realization of its dues;

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

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 of June, 2026).

¶33

(ffi(s* (RAJvI'ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Panuganti Balaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Panuganti Balaraj

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