Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Bachalakura Raveenender

DRT6 Mar 2026OA/757/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Bank of Maharashtra's application for recovery against two defaulters jointly liable. Court held defendants liable to pay principal, interest, and costs; directed execution against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 91,81,581/- with interest; OA secured by mortgage; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Bachalakura Raveenender — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 757 OF ZO2S

¶3

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad, T.S. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory

¶4

.....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

MT. BACHALAKURA MVEENENDER S/O. SRI. SHANKARAIAH SEX: MALE, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶7

R/o. Flat No. 201, Second Floor, "SpRING MEADOWS',, Plot Nos. 152, 153, L54, 167, 15g and 159, in Sy. Nos. 113/1 and 113/2, Gachibowli Village, Under GHMC Serllingampally Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶8

MRS. BACHALAKURA SULOCHANA, W/O. SRI. BACHALAKURA RAVEENDER, SEX: FEMALE, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/o. Flat No. 201, Second Floor,^,'SpRING MEADOWS',, Plot Nos. 152, 153, lS4, 167, 158 and 159, in Sy. Nos. tt3/1 and 113/2, Gachibowli Village, Under GHMC Serilingampally Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. ..Defendants

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Momin Mohammed Rafiq Counsel for the Defendants : Ex-parte , ).i**.-7.,-qr\ \r^{b.r r}

¶10

oA.NO.757l202s

¶11

:: SLLLL^::

¶12

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs. 91,81,581/-^{with future interest@9'25olo p'a' from} the date of application^{till the date of realization along with} costs and,^{in default,sale of OA moftgage property'}

¶13

SummonservedonDefendantsl&2throughpaperpublication and were set^{exparte on 09.01.2026 as called absent and no} representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank^{examined Mr. K'V'S' Shastry, Chief} Manager, as AW-l^{and marked 15 documentsthroughhim as} Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15'

¶15

Heard ex-pafte arguments^{from the Ld' Counsel of the} Applicant Bank.^{Perused the materialplaced on record'}

¶16

¶17

The^point that arises^{for considerationis: -}

¶18

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendants and^{OA mortgage} propefty?

¶19

As stated supra, the^{Defendants remainedex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit coupled with^{the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to A.15 marked on^{behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the claim of the Applicant^{Bankagainst the Defendants.} Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^{liable to pay the OA claim} to the Applicant Bank with^{futureinterestand costs.}

¶20

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.75712025is} allowed as under: - 49<.spb

C^{_-^,o,}

lv'
i
II

oA.NO.757 /2025

i) The Defendants 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 91,81,58U- with future interest @9.25o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property as 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 entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by m this the 6th Day of March, 2026).

¶31

PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Bachalakura Raveenender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Bachalakura Raveenender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/s. Pp Engineering

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Sunkari Apparao Gold Spot

Ayyanna It Park LLP Rep by P Sreedhar versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Mugala Suprita

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Munjeti Chiranjeevi

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Vikas Agarwal