Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Battula Nagaraju

DRT24 Aug 2026OA/773/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Punjab National Bank to recover a sum of Rs. 21,28,176.26 along with interest and costs from two defendants. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable and secured the claim via hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 21,28,176.26 with interest; claim secured by hypothecated vehicles; recovery certificate issued.

Punjab National Bank versus Battula Nagaraju — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24IH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 773 OF 2025

¶5

Punjab National Bank., (Erst United Bank of India), Circle Office Secunderabad, Maharshi House, Road No.3 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Battula Nagaraju, S/o. Battula Kotaiah Occ: Business, Age 42 Years D.No. 1-9lA, Opp. Community Hall Adsarlapadu Village, Vemsoor Mandal Khammam - 507L64.

¶9

Vemula Veladri, S/o. Vemula Yedukondalu, Occ: Business, Age 41 Years D No. 4-98, Kottamaddula Parva, Near Rice Mill, Reddigudem Mandal, Krishna District - 521215.

¶10

... Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. N M Shiny Mounika

¶12

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

:: Q-LD-q& ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.21,2A,L76.26ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @13.217o p.a. with monthly rests from 30.08.2021 till the date of realization along with costs and in defautt for sate of hypothecated vehideM\V

¶15

oA.NO.773l2025

¶16

¶17

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 15.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined M M Chishty, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A. 10.

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

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

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 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.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.773/2O25 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,28.176.26ps with future interest @77.27o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of reatizatioZA\8,,--t$

¶25

oa.No.77t/2o2s

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. {Dictated^{to thesteno, corrected,si8nedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 24rh Day ofAugust, 2026).

¶33

fr-'tu (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Punjab National Bank v. Battula Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Battula Nagaraju

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

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Bonasi Rajitha

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Gulli Stephen

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Swarna Sunil Kumar

Canara Bank versus Gowtham Polymers

Uco Bank versus M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Pharma.

Mr Krishna Datta Sastry Addepalli versus Axis Bank