Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Raja Plastic Industries

DRT13 Aug 2026OA/442/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of outstanding dues and future interest from borrowers and guarantors, noting that defendants failed to lead evidence to support their contentions regarding the scope of security and amount claimed. The court upheld the bank's right to proceed against the mortgaged property and issue a recovery certificate

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1.20 crore with future interest; Appellant entitled to proceed against mortgaged property, personal property, and costs; Recovery Certificate is

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Raja Plastic Industries — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13rH DAy oF AUGUsr,2a2o

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAM ESHWAR KOTH E, B.Com, L. LB.⁽ Hons. ), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 442 OF 2025

¶4

Bank of Baroda, having its branch office at Boinpally Branch, Secunderabad, TS, Represented by its Branch Manager & GPA Holder .....APPlicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Raja Plastic Industries Represented by its Prop: Mr. Hamilpur Raju, 1 1-5-235 /4, HP Road, Moosapet, Hyderabad-500080 & Others

¶7

Mr. Hamilpur Raju, S/o Mr. Baburao Hamilpur^{(Co-Applicant)} R/o: H. No. 8-4-368/A3 & A4, 8-515, First Floor, Flat No. 5160 & 5161, At Janapriya Metropolis Block No. 5, Fathenagar Village, Erragadda, Hyderabad-5000 1 B

¶8

Mrs. Hamilpur Vijayalakshmi W/o. Hamilpur Raju^(Guarantor) R/o: H. No. 8-4-368|A3 & 44, B-5/5, first Floor, Flat No. 5160 & 5161, At Jana Priya Metropolis Block No. 5, Fathenagar Village, Erragadda, ...Defendants Hyderabad-500018

¶9

: Ms. D. Bala Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Defendants : Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao //hl U/^"ffirb

OA No.44212025

2of5

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,20,03,547.72 ps as on 25.04.2025 from the Defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally with future interest @ 11% p.a. with monthly rest from 25.04.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs, and in default sale of mortgaged property.

¶14

The averments of the Applicant Bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that defendants availed OD and term loan from applicant bank in year 2022 secured via mortgage of property. However, defendants committed persistent defaults in repayment of the loan instalments, resulting in the loan account being classified as a NPA on 08.01.2025. Thereafter, the applicant bank issued a demand notice dated 09.01.2025 under section 13(2) calling upon the defendants to discharge the outstanding dues. Despite service of the said notice, the defendants failed to regularise the account, compelling the applicant bank to file the present OA seeking recovery of the outstanding dues.

¶15

Defendants filed a Written Statement, contesting the maintainability ofthe OA. In brief, the Defendants contend that Defendant No.l availed an overdraft facility of Rs.30,00,000/- sanctioned on 31.03.2022, secured by mortgage of property, and subsequently obtained a separate term loan of Rs,92,00,000/- under the CGTMSE scheme on 01.08.2023, which, according to them, was secured only by hypothecation of plant and machinery and not by the said flat. They therefore contend that the two facilities are distinct and that the mortgaged flat cannot be proceeded against for recovery of the CGTMSE loan. The Defendants further submit that due to difficulties in relocating their manufacturing unit, business operations were disrupted, resulting in inability to service the loan, though

OW,r*

OANo.44212025

3of5

they claim to have kept the Bank informed of the circumstances and subsequently taken steps to restart the business at a new premise. They also dispute the amount claimed by the Applicant Bank and contend that the Bank is required to establish the liability, security coverage, and jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, defendants pray for dismissal of the OA.

¶20

In order to prove its case, Applicant Bank examined by Ms. T. Prathima, Chief Manager as AW-1 and marked 33 documents through them as Exhibits A-1 to A-33,

¶21

The right of defendants to adduce evidence was forfeited after affording sufficient opportunities vide docket order dated 16.04.2026.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Bank. The right of defendants to advance oral arguments was forfeited on 20.07.2026, after affording ample opportunities. Perused the written arguments filed by the applicant, defendants and also perused the material placed on record.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the Applicant, during the course of arguments, placed reliance upon Exs.A-1 to A-33 marked through the evidence of AW-1 in support of the Applicant Bank's claim. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar, (1992) 2 SCC 330, learned Counsel submitted that the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the outstanding amount along with future interest and costs.

¶24

B. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Defendants reiterated the contents of the Written Statement, denied the Applicant Bank's claim and disputed the charge over the secured property. Accordingly, Learned ._-\r.ro- _ Counsel prayed for dismissal of the O.A. A'y,,nl\ al

¶25

OA No.442/2025

¶26

4of5

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶28

whether the Applicant Bank is entiiled for the oA claim against the Defendants and mortgaged property?

¶29

As stated supra, the defendants, apart from making general denials in the Written Statement and arguments and disputing the claim of the applicant bank, have failed to substantiate their defence by adducing any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The Defendants also did not choose to cross-examine AW-1 so as to discredit the testimony of the witness or challenge the genuineness and correctness of Exs.A-1 to A-33 relied upon by the Applicant Bank. It is well setiled that mere pleadings or bald assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of the facts pleaded. On the contrary, the Applicant Bank has placed on record both oral and documentary evidence in support of its claim. The testimony of AW-1, coupled with the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A-l to A-33, has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant Bank has successfully established its claim. Hence, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the O.A. claim to the Applicant Bank together with future interest and costs, in accordance with law.

¶30

In the result, the present Original Application No.442l2O2S is allowed as under: -

¶31

(i) The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severaily riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. L,20,03,547.72 ps with future interest rate @ 8.25o/o p.a. simple from 2s.04.202s tiil the date of reariza tb^lMv*

¶32

OA No.44212025

¶33

5of5

¶34

(ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of the property described in the column of "Details of Debts and Assets" annexed to the OA, and the Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the said secured property for realization of the outstanding dues;

¶35

(iii) the applicant is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶36

(iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs;

¶37

Memo within 2 weeks from L2. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost the date of receipt of this Order.

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

L4, Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned,

¶40

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13tn day of August, 2026)

¶41

(RAS4ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Raja Plastic Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Raja Plastic Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Orginpulse Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Kothapalli Dharma Teja

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mohd Ikram Khan

Dcb Bank Limited versus Sagara Basavana Goud

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vangaveti Jyothi

Bank of India versus M/s. Chaitanya Metal Industries.