Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Jammula Kapil Kumar

DRT3 Feb 2026OA/600/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal decided an application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs.20,94,723.78 plus interest and costs from two joint borrowers. In the absence of defendants, the tribunal upheld the evidence submitted by the bank and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,94,723.78 plus future interest and costs; hypothecated vehicle and defendant properties attachable for realization; recovery certificate i

Bank of Baroda versus Jammula Kapil Kumar — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 600 OF 2025

¶6

Bank of Ba/oda., Srinagar Colony Branch, 8-3-1116/1 Keshav Nagar Main Road, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, Te la n ga na- 5 0 0 0 7 3. Rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Jammula Kapil Kumar S/o. lammula Veera Raghavarao Age 34 Years, Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o. H.No.11-11-120/11, Near Ramalayam Temple, NSP Campas, Khanapuram Haweli, Khammam Urban, Khammam

¶9

District, Tela ngana - 507002.

¶10

I4r. Jammula Sai Chand S/o. Jammula Veera Raghava Rao Age'31 Years, Occ: Pvt. Employee

¶11

R/o. H.No.01-98/91t2, Cyber Hills Colony Jai Hlnd Gandhi Road, Madhapur Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081.

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applica nt :I4r. V. Ekantha Rao

¶14

Defenda nts

¶15

:Ex-parte

¶16

::'-Q[B:D_LL ::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recovery a total} sum of Rs.20,94,723.78ps towards^Loan A/c.^No 34990600002102 from the defendants^jointly and^severally

¶18

oA.NO.600/202s

¶19

with future interest @8.55o/o^p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶20

Summons served on D1, whereas summons served on^D2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 31.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Vijay Maloth, Senior Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 12 documents throlgh him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.12.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle? ,

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.12 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

Application No.600/2025 is

¶27

allowed as under: -

¶28

oA.NO.600/202s

¶29

i)	TheDefendantsarejointly andseverally
	liabletopaytotheApplicantBankasumof
	Rs.20,94,723.78pstowardsLoanA/c.No.
	34990600002102withfutureinterest
	@8.55%^p,a.simplefromthedate^of
	applicationtillthedate of realization;
ii)	theOAclaimissecuredbywayof
	hypothecationofvehicledescribedinthe
	scheduleannexedtotheOA andthe
	applicant bank is entitledto^proceedagainst
	thesametorealiseitsdebU
iii)	theapplicant bank is alsoentitledto^proceed
	againstthepersonand^propertiesof
	defendantsforrealizationofitsdues;
iv)	theapplicantbank isentitledfor thecosts,

¶30

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

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 03'd Day of February,^2026).

¶33

1... .- (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

o. r r rE HpprLqlIL uot ll\ l> ullcLLcu^{LU lllc -u5L lvlcl llu wlLlllll z weeK5}

Bank of Baroda v. Jammula Kapil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Jammula Kapil Kumar

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

Canara Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Medicure Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/S Mdh Tvs

nawazkhantraders versus shriramtransportfinancecompany

Bank of India versus M/s. Devi Marketing.

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Bhagya Laxmi Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Sujan. M