Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Kalamanda Krishna

DRT7 Jul 2026OA/526/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of dues, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the claim of the bank against the absent defendant. The court held the defendant liable to pay the principal, future interest, and costs, also directing the bank to realize the debt from the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendant to pay Rs. 45,47,998.41 with future interest and costs; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE OTIH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR Ko ,*.rrrr^lnj;rur...ffl^{., L. LB. (Hons.), M.A.}

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 526 OF 2026

¶3

Bank of Baroda., Boinpally Branch, Secunderabad, TS. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶4

.....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Kalamanda Krishna, S/o. Mr. Kalamanda venkataiah, Age 30 years, Occ: Business No. 24, ffi, Bollaram, Secunderabad r etangana - 500010.

¶7

Also at:-

¶8

Mr. Kalamanda Krishna, S/o. Mr. Katamanda venkataiah, H.No.6_45, Kothacolony Y:J9gld"^{Mandat, Jutapa e, Mahabubnagar} r erangana - 509324.

¶9

... Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. D. Bala Defendant : Ex-parte :: oRDER ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs,45 ,47 ,99g.4tps towards Loan A/c. No. 24730600005721 from the defendant with future interest @11.90o/o^p.a. with monthly rests from 08.02.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecatedvehicte. DYr^.rrf ( J/. ?-|.l:lt*,

¶12

oA.NO.526/2026

¶13

Summon^{servedon sole defendantand was set ex-parteon}

¶14

2, 06.07.2026^{as called absentand no representation'}

¶15

3.^{The Applicant Bank examinedT Prathima'Chlef Manager'as} AW-1 and^{marked 21 documentsthroughher as Ex'A'lto} Ex.A'21.

¶16

Heard the^{Ld. Counselfor the Applicant Bank' Perusedthe} material Placed^{on record'}

¶17

The Point that^{arises for consideration is:-}

¶18

whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendant^{and OA h\Pothecated} vehicle?

¶19

As stated^{supra, the Defendant remainedex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.l^{to A.21 markedon behalfof the ApplicantBank} clinches the^{claimof the Applicant Bank againstthe Defendant'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claimto} the Applicant^{Bank wlth future interest and costs'}

¶20

In the result,^{the present Original ApplicationNo 526/2026 is} allowed as^{under: -}

¶21

i) The Defendant is^{liable topay tothe} Applicant.Bank a sum^{of Rs.45,47,998'41ps} towards Loan A/c.^{No. 24730600005721 with} future interest @9olo^{p.a. simple from the} date of application till^{the date of realization;} ,rfur9a^1v\

¶22

(!,..<1n^,

¶23

¶24

oA.NO.s2612026

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶26

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

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

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 07th Day ofJuty, 2026). dW"u (RAFIESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Kalamanda Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Kalamanda Krishna

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

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav and Others versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri. Madduri Sreenivas

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri Keshava Chary Venjarapu

State Bank of India versus M/s. Nani Mini Lorry Transport.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Sunku Charan Kumar Chetty

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praful Kundik Navghare