Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Ryn Enterprises

DRT17 Apr 2026OA/576/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No. 576 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of amounts due from the defendants under a secured loan agreement, making them jointly and severally liable and directing the issue of a Recovery Certificate. The court made the attachment of mortgaged property absolute.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 50,02,227.35 with interest; attachment order made absolute; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ryn Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17tI' DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI cOptCHAND, pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No.576 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Nallakunta Branch, University Road, Hyderabad.

¶6

Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. RYN Enterprises,

¶10

Rep. by its Proprietor,

¶11

Mr. Ramavath Yadagiri,

¶12

Flat No. 101, 1st Floor, Plot No. 100, Viswa Balaji Arcade, South Kamala Nagar, Near Master Mind School,

¶13

Kapra,

¶14

Medchal Malkajgiri District - 500 62,

¶15

Telangana State.

¶16

Mr. Ramavath Yadagiri,

¶17

S/o. Ramavath Dasaradha, Age : 37 years, Sex : Male, Occ. Business,

¶18

Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 4-53, Nemaragomula, Pedda Thanda, Bagdayara, Jameelpet, Nalgonda - 508^',l26 ii -' 7r /'{%\ Telangana State. Defendants frJ^1IAPBry6 : t'k*#

¶19

(oA. No. s76l202s)

¶20

Counsel for the parties :

¶21

For The Applicant Momin Mohammed Rafiq. For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 16.04.2026 Pronounced on 17.04.2026 Upload in website on 17.04.2026

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.5O,02,227.35 Ps. (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Thifi Five Only) i.e a sum of -

¶24

(i) Rs.23,40,870.35 Ps. together with subsequent interest @11.90%^{p.a withmonthly rests along} with^penal interest @2% p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization;

¶25

(ii) Rs.26,61,357.00 Ps. together with subsequent interest @11.90%^{p.a with monthly rests along with penat interest} @2% p.a is application till the date of realization;

¶26

it 1t Apn M

¶27

(oA. No. s76l202s)

¶28

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Properties A and B to OA.

¶29

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant no. 2 availed Term Loan of Rs.50.00 Lakhs together with interest @11.gOo/o p.a with monthly rests and executed Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement dated 24.03.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants availed Term Loan of Rs.50.00 Lakhs together with interest @11.90o/o p.a with monthly rests and executed Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement dated 22.06.2023 in favor of the Appticant Bank. After avaiting the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued Legal Notice dated 24.11.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 16.04.2026.

¶31

Sri. Atul Gupta, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined AW.1 and-exhibited relevant documents, wh 1 to A.9.

¶32

theld. Counselfor Applicant Bank. I/APF,M

¶33

(OA. No. s761202s)

¶34

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

¶35

Defendants 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 A.9.} ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank^has established their claim made in the OA against the^Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to^recover the^claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶36

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

¶37

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are^{jointly and} severally^liableto pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.50'02,227.35 Ps. (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Thifi Five Only)i.easumof-

¶38

(i) Rs.23,40,870.35 Ps. together with subsequent interest @11.90o/o^{p.a from the date of this application tillthe date of} realization;

¶39

(ii) Rs.26,61,357.00 Ps. together with subsequent interest @11 date of this application till the date of rear{1g€fi; I [i ii * rrinwt \r.$- W...

¶40

(oA. No. 575l202s)

¶41

L The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property AS mentioned in the Schedule of Property A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

The order of attachment in l.A. No. 1412026 dated 05.01.2026 in respect of Petition schedule property is made absolute. lnclude the said property in Recovery Certificate.

¶43

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants No. 2 and Properties of Defendant no. 1 Firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of Apr, 2026)

¶49

¶50

¶51

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

Dtii-t, wERABAD.

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Ryn Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Ryn Enterprises

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

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Vattikuti Sridevi

Canara Bank versus M/S. Karnem Upender

Smt Koheer Vanitha versus Punjab National Bank

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Veeramaneni Someshwar Rao

Intelligentia Mansions Private Limited versus Asset Reconstructions Co. India Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hotcrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.