Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s. Venkata Ramana Laxmi Wlccs

DRT5 Mar 2026OA/580/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 580 of 2025 by Bank of India against defendants ex-parte. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed sum with interest and costs, permitting realization through hypothecated assets and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 34,12,374.81 with future interest; proceedings against hypothecated assets and personal properties allowed; recovery certificate to be issued.

Bank of India versus M/s. Venkata Ramana Laxmi Wlccs — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB.^(Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 580 OF 2025

¶6

Bank of India KHAIMTABAD Branch, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶7

......Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Venkata Ramana^LaxmiWLCCS, Rep by its President Sri. Shivarati Mallesh, H.No. 13-6-2stl5l t48/^A, Jafferguda, Karwan, Hyderabad- 500006.

¶10

Sri Shivarati Mallesh, S/o Shivarati UPPalaiah, Aged about 42years, H.No. 13-6-25t/ 5l r4B/^A, Jafferguda, Karwan, t{yCerabaO- 500006.

¶11

"'Defendants

¶12

: Ms. P. Suseela Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

Counsel for the Defendants^{: Ex-parte}

¶14

:: ORDER ::

¶15

The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs. 34,L2,374.81^{ps i.e., Rs. 29,03,LLZ'OS ps towards} the overdraft account^{no.860925110000032with future interest} ry"

¶16

2 oA.NO.s80/2025

¶17

@13.50o/o^p.a. and Rs. 5,09,262.76^{ps towards the GECL} account no.860970210000137 with future interest @9.25olo p.a. from 27.Lt.2A24 till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of OA hypothecated assets.

¶18

Summon served on Defendants 1 & 2 through^{paper publication} and were set expafte on 08.10.2025 as called absent and^no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Ms. B. Anusree, Officer, as AW-1 and marked 34 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.34.

¶20

Heard ex-pafte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assetsT

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.34 marked on behalf of the Appricant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are riable to pay the oA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Ap ication No.580/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶25

¶26

oA.NO.580/202s

¶27

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 34,12,374.81^ps with future interest @13.50o/o^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery Certiflcate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by mgiqthe open courtron thisthe5th Dayof March,2025). /,/)%#\ (BAM'5HWARKOTHE) fl*fsloltrtc oFFIcER

Bank of India v. M/s. Venkata Ramana Laxmi Wlccs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s. Venkata Ramana Laxmi Wlccs

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

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Isarayal

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Rachineni Gangadevi

Ms Thulasi Traders Rep by its Prop Thulaseewar Reddy versus Shriram Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/s v N Interiors

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Suryaprabha Agro Farms