Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S. Mogili Girija

DRT20 Jan 2026OA/559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Indian Bank for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 20,67,410 against a defaulting proprietor. Since the defendant appeared ex parte, the Tribunal accepted the bank's documentary evidence and ordered payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Bank to recover Rs. 20,67,410 with future interest; sought Recovery Certificate; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated movables and assets confirmed.

Indian Bank versus M/S. Mogili Girija — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2oth DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 559 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

!ndian Bank, Narayanaguda Branch, G-2, H.No . 3-6-784, Legend Venkatesha, Besides Tajmahal Hotel, Narayanguda, Hyderabad - 500 029. Telangana, lndia Represented by Branch Manager Applicant VERSUS M/s.Mogili Girija, Proprietorship, Rep.by its Proprietor, Mrs. Mogili Girija, Wo. Y. Srinivas, R/o. H.No. 3-45-8212, Krishna Nagar, Hyderguda, Attapur, Hyderabad - 500 048, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. Defendant -sA\ 21?F :il -^{+i irf}

¶6

(oA. No. ss9/202s)

¶7

Counsel for the parties^:

¶8

For The Applicant Sri. B. Siva Kumar For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 19.01.2026 Pronounced on 20.01.2026 Upload in website on 20.01.2026

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA against Defendant} for recovery of a total sum of^{Rs.20,67,410'00 Ps' (Rupees} Twenty Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand^{Four Hundredand} Ten Only) with future interest @^{11.5o/o p.a with monthly rests} from 11 .11.2025 till the date of realization^{and in defaultfor} sale of Hypothecated Movables as^{mentionedin the Schedule} Property to OA.

¶11

¶12

rests and executed loan documents and 01 .09.2023 in favor of the availing the loan facility, the^defendant 2

¶13

(oA. No. ss9/202s)

¶14

failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued notice to the defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶15

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 19.01 .2026.

¶16

Sri. Kamera Anoop Kumar, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 lo A.44.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶18

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶19

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.44. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶20

ff,

¶21

(oA. No. ssglzo2sl

¶22

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶23

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.20,67,410.00 Ps. (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ten Only) with future interest @ 11.5% p.a from 11.11.2025 till the date of realization.

¶24

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶25

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶26

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶27

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶28

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2Oh day of Jan, 2026)

¶31

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
\ ll PRESIDING OFFICER
?.'.,'
t-i ^!',.J-.
W
:''.-l F6 F .r.:].".1.J iTABAD,

Indian Bank v. M/S. Mogili Girija

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S. Mogili Girija

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Basa Technologies Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Akkishetty Sreelatha

p srinivasulu versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Gaddam Saritheshwar Rao versus Karur Vysya Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ramana . M

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammad Hameed