IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.857 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 11.03.2026 Between:

Gundluri Srinivas and Another …..Petitioners AND Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank), Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Authorised Officer and 20 Others …..Respondents Mr.A.V.Gopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Mr.Srinivas Chitturu, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Bank of Baroda.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Petitioners have challenged an order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (‘DRAT’) dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2025 filed by the petitioners from an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad (‘DRT’).

2. By the order dated 10.01.2025, the DRT had dismissed the Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.1711 of 2022) filed by the petitioners in T.A.No.2224 of 2017 (Old O.A.No.617 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.1) for directing the respondent No.1-Bank of Baroda (‘Bank’) to place the total Statement of Accounts pertaining to the petitioner No.1’s loan accounts and to reconcile the said Statement of Accounts. In the said Interlocutory Application, the petitioners also prayed for a direction on the respondent No.1- Bank of Baroda to refund any excess amount collected by the Bank from the petitioners along with accrued interest. The DRT dismissed the IA on 10.01.2025 noting that a dispute pertaining to the Sale proceeds of Rs.2,63,90,939/- is yet to be resolved among three Banks (including the respondent No.1) and that the amounts collected by the Bank from the tenants as rents, the undisputed Sale proceeds and the amounts paid by the petitioners, had been adjusted toward the loan accounts. The DRT also found that the petitioners had suppressed the fact of the petitioner No.1 having been convicted in a CBI case (C.C.No.13 of 2014). It was further noted that the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the OA) had filed numerous petitions to delay the trial of the OA. The DRT hence, advised the parties to get ready with their arguments without seeking any adjournment. The petitioners challenged the said order before the DRAT on the ground that by way of monthly rents from the tenants occupying the scheduled premises and the alleged illegal auction proceedings in respect of the scheduled premises, the Bank of Baroda had already realized more than the amount claimed as due from the petitioners for the issuance of a Recovery Certificate in the OA.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Bank of Baroda.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the conviction of the petitioner No.1 in C.C. No.13 of 2014 vide order dated 23.01.2018, has no nexus with the recovery proceedings filed by the Bank of Baroda before the DRT. Counsel also submits that as per the deposition dated 24.11.2016 of the concerned Officer of the Bank before the CBI Court, Vijaya Bank (now Bank of Baroda) cannot foist any new liability against the petitioners by filing the OA for recovery when there are no outstanding dues in respect of the petitioner No.1’s accounts.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-Bank of Baroda submits that the amounts collected pendente lite by the Bank after filing of the OA, cannot be crystallized into a Statement of Accounts since there is an on-going dispute among three Banks namely, the respondent No.1-Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank), UCO Bank and the State Bank of India, pertaining to the apportionment of the amounts collected pendente lite. Counsel submits that UCO Bank and the State Bank of India are also competing for the same securities and have amounts outstanding from the petitioners as the petitioners had availed cr