DT-II allowed Bank of Baroda's OA for recovery of dues and interest against borrower and guarantors. Tribunal held defendants jointly liable after establishing loan default and finding defendants' defenses unsubstantiated by evidence.
Loan recovery including future interest; invocation of hypothecation assets; rights against persons and properties; costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF ]ULY, 2026
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Original Application No: 894 OF 2025
Bank of Baroda, M.G. Road, Secunderabad Branch, Hyderabad, Rep by its Principal Officer and Branch lvlanager
.....Applicant
Versus
Also at S.Y.No.55/A, Devarayamjal Village, Tumkunta Municipality, Shameerpet, Medcha l-Ma lkajgiri
:: ORDER::
OA No.B94l2025
2of5
interest @10.80o/o p.a. along with 4olo p'a' penal interest with monthlY rests from11.09.2025 till the date of realisationalong with costs, andin default, saleof OA hypothecated assets'
OA No.894/2025
3of5
the dues, not an intention to evade repayment. Hence, defendantspray for dismissal of the OA.
Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the DeFendants and OA hypothecated assets?
OA No.89 4/2025
4of5
to default, failed to substantiate their defence byproducing any oral or documentary evidence. They also didnot choose tocross-examine AW-1 to discredit the testimony of the witness or the documentsmarkedas Exs.A-1 to A-12. It is well settled that merepleadings, unsupportedby cogent evidence, cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the ApplicantBank has duly proved its claim through the oral evidence of AW-1 and the documentary evidence placed on record. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence,the testimony of AW-1, coupled with the recitals contained inExs.A-1to A-12, remains uncontroverted and inspires confidence.Accordingly,this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant Bank has successfullyestablishedits claim. Accordingly, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are heldjointly and severallyliable to pay the O.A. claim to the Applicant Bank together with future interest and costs.
OA No.B94l2025
5of5
(iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs;
t2. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
t4. Communicate a copy of this order to theparties concerned.
(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the o-pqn court on this the 3'd day of July, 2026) f$trrt$ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?
Whether the Defendants successfully invoked exceptions to evade repayment through accounts of wrongful NPA classification?
Whether the Defendants' failure to adduce evidence renders their bare pleadings insufficient to rebut the Bank's claim?
Bank of Baroda
M/s Delite food products
M/s. Senagasetty Bhavani
Kothapeta Vishnu Vardhan Rao
Rameshwar Koth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
