Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Vijaya Surya Enterprises

DRT18 Feb 2026OA/864/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of Rs. 36,67,630.01 with future interest against defaulting joint borrowers. The application was decided in the absence of defendants, who forfeited their right to appear.

What did the court decide?

Ordered payment of Rs. 36,67,630.01 with future interest; proceedings allowed against mortgaged property and persons; recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATEO THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KO.l ,rrrorlriir.r....ofl^{., L. LB.(Hons. ), M.A.}

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 864 OF 2O2S

¶5

Bank of Baroda., Subash Road Branch, AnanthaDur

¶6

h^- s 1 s o o 1 i:; : ff [:'^HTiij;111i 11,?:.",1 "s

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 lYs Vijaya^Surya Enterprises., Hep Dy its partners, Mr.i.Sai layanth D.No.3_443_ 10, prashanth-i Nagar r apovanam, Anantapur _ StSOb+.

¶10

yjl,_s__s-airaygnth, s/o. s surya praka_sh Reddy, Aged 27 years u_cc: tsUsiness, R,/o. Mallasandra Village uagepa i Tatuk, Mallasandra, Chikabaitapur Karnataka _ 561207.

¶11

,. I:..f. Anuradha, w/o. p. Lakshmipathi I9ddy,.eSeO^{40 years,R/o.} tO Naarasimhapalli Village, Goranua Mandal Anathapur _ 515247.

¶12

... Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Trivikram Chitturu

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a totat sum of Rs.36,67,630.01ps towards Overdraft Facility from the defendants joinfly and severally with futule interest 6119.ggo7o (N**

¶19

oA.NO.864/2025

¶20

¶21

p.a. plus penal interest with monthly rests from the date of in application till the date of realization along with costs and default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶22

WS of D1 to 3 not filed hence, their right of filing WS is hereby forfeited and set ex-parte on 13.02.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Sanjay Kumar, Chief Manager, as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.13.

¶24

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

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶27

As stated supra/ the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals ln the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.13 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.

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.86412025 is allowed as under: -

¶29

oA.NO.864/202s

¶30

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.36,67,630.01ps towards Overdraft Facility with future interest @9.80o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

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 18th Day of February, 2026).

¶37

,j ., ,1rrtt^_.,,.i '^,,'l:-'"

¶38

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Vijaya Surya Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Vijaya Surya 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

Ganesh Rajesh versus Yms Finance Private Limited

Gummadavelli Ganesh versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Turpu Ramesh versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Pulluri Sairam

Canara Bank versus M/s. Chandana Apparels