BANK OF BARODA vs Sri lakshmi srinivasa seeds on 30 October 2026

1. M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Seeds Rep. by its Partner Mr. Rekam Raja 2, Mr. Rekam Raja S/o Subbarayudu, aged 40 Yrs R/o. D No 7/6-4, vijaYa Nagar colonY, Chemmumiahpet, CuddaPah-516001

3. Mr. Rekam Narayana S/o Subbarayudu, aged 45 Yrs Rl o.44/ 36, Kothapalli village, Ramapurah Mandal, Cuddapah' " 'Defendants Ld.Counsel for the Applicant : M/s' Trivikram Chitturu Ld.Counsel forthe Defendants : M/s. M' V. S. Sharma :: CLLLE& ::

1. The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.55,86,786/- from Defendant Nos' 1 to 3 with future interest @11.65010 p.a. from the date of application till the date of ffi<"

realization along with costs, and in default property. OA No.15A7l2O17 (old OA No.a94l2o16) sale of OA mortgaged

2. The averments of the applicant bank, as stated in the OA, in brief, are that 1st defendant being proprietary concern, represented by 2nd defendant availed overdraft facility in year 2013. The 3.d defendant stood as guarantor, He executed persona guarantee and also created mortgage of OA schedule property in favour of the applicant bank as security for repayment of facility. The defendants subsequently committed defaults in servicing the interest and repayment of the installments, in consequence of which the bank declared the account as a NpA on 29.01.2015. As defendants failed to regularize the account within stipulated period, applicant bank was constrained to approach this Tribunal for recovery of its OA claim a mou nt.

3. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, adopted by Defendant No.2 & 3. The Defendants, in their written statement, denied the Applicant Bank's allegation regarding default in servicing the interest and repayment of instalments and disputed the classification of the account as irregular. They also denied their joint and several liability for the amounts claimed under the OD facility and contended that no amount was due to the Bank; rather, the Bank was liable to pay amounts to Defendant No.1. By way of counter_claim, Defendant No.1 alleged that the Applicant Bank had suppressed material facts and that its officials had unauthorisedly withdrawn/misappropriated amounts from its Current Account No. O997O2OOOOO37B and OD Account No.09970400000216. It was alleged that a totat sum of Rs.85,38,000/- was unauthorisedly withdrawn from the said accounts through various entries between May 2013 and February 2074, (M''s'u 3ol7 ,"" 31 i,:'.'"tx,,'.'""ti without duly signed cheques or authorisation, and that the Bank was liable to account for and refund the said amount' Defendant No'1 further relied upon the legal notices and replies exchanged between the parties and contended that instead of adjusting the alleged amounts against the OD liability, the Bank had instituted the present O.A. Hence, Defendants sought dismissal of the O'A'

4. Rejoinder filed by the Applicant Bank stating, inter alia' that Bank issued rely to legal notice on 12'05 2015 giving details of amounts debited at the instructions of Defendant on 17 10 2013' 06.02.20!4 and 24.02.2074 totalling to Rs 46,20,000/- and that there was mention of Rs.1,47,000/- in the legal notice'

5. The APP|icant Bank Manager, as AW-l and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. examined Mr. K. Kantha Rao, Senior Branch marked 10 documents through them as

6. In order to substantiate their defence. Rekam Narayana examined himself as DW-1 and to B.11. 3d defendant, Mr. marked Exhibits 8.1

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the defendants. Perused the written arguments filed by the applicant and also perused the material placed on record'

8. During the course of arguments Learned Counsel for the Applicant Bank submitted that Defendant No'1 availed an overdraft facility of RS.46,OO,OOO/- on 24 '05 '2013, secured by the personal guarantee of Defendant No.3 and equitable mortgage created by deposit of title deeds, evidenced bv Ex A-7' and tb4t the account was US'v'ru

oa No.rsa7 r 2or7 (otd OA No.a94il2016) classified as NpA on Zg.O7.2Ot5, Accordingly, the Applicant filed the present o.A. The Appricant Bank disputes the alegation that the Bank had made certain unauthorised,.self,, withdrawals from their Current Account and Overdraft Account and contends that certain alleged withdrawals do not form part of the O.A. claim, while the objection regarding the withdrawal of Rs.1,48,000/_ dated 21.12.2013 was raised belatedly as an afterthought. The Applicant further relies upon the statement of Account (Ex.A-10), subsequent transactions in the account and the defendants, failure to raise any timely objection, despite being engaged in regular business transactions. Retiance is also placed upon the order dated 01.06.2020 in O.A. No.226 of 2017, wherein an identical defence raised by the same Defendant No.3 was stated to have been rejected. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks a decree for the O.A. claim against the Defendants together with interest and costs.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Defendants denied the contentions of the Applicant Bank and submitted that the Bank had unauthorisedly misappropriated a total sum of Rs.g5,3g,OO0/- from the Defendants, accounts without duly signed cheques or valid authorisation, and that the said amount is liable to be refunded by the Applicant Bank. On these dismissar of the o.A. grounds' learned counser prayed for The point that arises for consideration is: - Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the clai!1-made in the OA against the Defendant and OA mortgaged propefty?

11. The Applicant Bank has established the sanction and avaitment of the OD facility and executior'' or th" ,."ru'uz6ffi:'Jrantee and

10. sofT ,.'.31i,1:'"?".i'r'r'r'"1 security documents through Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. The Defendants, while admittlng the existence of the accounts, have alleged that certaln amounts were unauthorisedly withdrawn from their Current Account and oD Account and have sought refund of the alleged amount of Rs.85,38,000/-. It is pertinent to note that out of Rs.85,38,600/- alleged to be unauthorizedly withdrawn by bank officials, only an amount of Rs.47,68,OOO/- pertalns to the OD account which is the subject matter of the Present OA.

12. The Defendants have relied upon Exs.B.l. 8,2, B'4,8.5, 8.8 and 8.9 to demonstrate that they had sought particulars and clarification regarding the disputed transactions and have also received replies from the Applicant Bank under Exs.B.3 and 8.10. However, the mere fact that the Defendants disputed the withdrawals does not, by itself, establish that the transactions were unauthorised or that the Applicant Bank was liable to refund the amounts claimed The Defendants have not placed any cogent and independent evidence on record to establish that the disputed withdrawals were made without their authority or that the Applicant Bank was responsible for any alleged misappropriation. Further, no material has been placed before this Tribunal to demonstrate that the Defendants initiated any appropriate legal proceedings against the concerned Bank offlcials in respect of the alleged misappropriation.

13. In the absence of satisfactory evidence establishing the alleged unauthorised withdrawals and the Applicant Bank's liability therefor, the Defendants' claim for refund cannot be accepted Accordingly, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant Bank has established its claim against Defendant Nos.1 to 3. Hence, I hold that the Defendants 1 to '7\rng'-'"+\ (y' ''t'o'*

,.,.3i X3:l3Xi',i"'"1 3 are joinfly and severaily riabre to pay the oA craim to the Appricant Bank with future interest and costs.

74. In the result, the present Original Application No.15g22017 is allowed as under: - The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs.55,86,786/- future interest @11.65% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization; the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property as described in Schedule ..A,, annexed to the OA and applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the same for realisation of dues;

iii) the applicant bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants 1 to 3 for realization of its dues;

iv) the applicant bank is entifled For the costs. 15' The Appricant Bank is directed to fire cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

16. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

17. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on the official website. (Typed to my dictation bv the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3oth Day of October, 2026). ,/ffi* ((AMESHWAR KOTHE) Pvrs\d\1..t ! {{itrr- ,1 j i) ii)

OA No.15a7l 2017 (old OA No.894/ 2016) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA No.1587/2017 (old OA No.894/2016) of case file. Call on 06.08.2026 Order not ready for verification 24.09.?026. /)w-- " P.O.

24. O9.2026 Verification completed. For orders call on 16.10.2026. .\\ / P.O. 16.10.2026 Order not ready due to heavy Bench work and paucity of time. call on 30.10.2026 for orders. flV*,, {,/ p.o. 30.10.2026 Order pronounced vide separate sheets. In the result, OA is allowed with costs. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. P.O.