Allowed

M/S. Canara Bank v. M/S Skeedo Enterprises

DRT23 Sept 2025OA/147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of an overdraft sum of Rs.21,54,779/-. It held defendants jointly and severally liable with future interest. The claim was secured by hypothecated assets and executable against person and properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.21,54,779/- with future interest; claim secured by hypothecated assets; execution against person and properties allowed.

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S Skeedo Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 147 oF 2025

¶4

M/s. Canara Bank., Jillelaguda Branch, Situated at 96 Gayatri Nagar, Opp Nagarjuna School Sagar Road, Ji etaguda, Hyderabad_500079. Rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Skeedo Enterprises., Rep by its^prop. Sri Tingirikar Saideekshit Baba, Aged about 26 years Occ: Business, Situated at H.No.9-47_1S Flat No.202, Sri Harsha Towers Gayathri Nagar, Hyderabad _ 5OOO97.

¶8

Sri Tingirikar Saideekshit Baba S/o. Sri Tingirikar Venkateshwarlu Aged about 26^years, Occ: Business R/o. H. No.9-47- 15, Ftat No.202 Sri Harsha Towers, Gayathri Nagar Hyderabad - 500097.

¶9

... Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. M.Srinivas

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.21,54,779/- towards Over Draft Credit Facility from the defendants joinuy and severally with future interest @13.50o/o p.a. from the date of apptication till the date of OY**

¶15

oA.NO.147l202S

¶16

in default for^{sale of} realization along^{with costs and} hypothecated^assets.

¶17

Summons^{served on D1 and 2 through} paper PUblication. TheY called absent and^no

¶18

were set ex-parte^{on 25.06.2025as} representation.

¶19

The Applicant^{Bank examined Vishnu Murthy} Malloju, Senior Manager, as^{AW-1 and marked 16 documents} through him^as Ex. A.1 to^{Ex. A.16.}

¶20

Heard the Ld.^{Counsetfor the Applicant Bank' Perused the} material Placed^{on record.}

¶21

The^point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶22

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendants and^{OA hypothecated} assets?

¶23

As stated^{supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitalsin the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to A.16^{markedon behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the claim of^{the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold that the^{Defendantsare jointlyand severally liable} to pay the OA claim to the^{Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶24

In the result, the^{present OriginalApplication No 14712025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶25

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the Applicant^Bank a^{sum of}

¶26

0A.NO.747l2o2s

¶27

¶28

Rs.2t,54,779l-^{towardsOver Draft Credit} Facility^{with future interest@11'50o/oF'a'} simple^{from the date of applicationtill the} date of^realization;

¶29

ii) the^{OA claim issecured bY waY of} hypothecation^{of assets describedin the} schedule^{annexed tothe OA and the} applicant^{bank is entitledto proceedagainst} the^{same to realise its debt;}

¶30

the^{applicant bank is also entitled to proceed} iii) against^{the person and propertiesof} O.t..it"t^{for realization of its dues;}

¶31

iv)^{the applicantbank is entitled for the costs'} within^{2 weeks}

¶32

rhe^{Apprican. r.l::::J:'J:lj""::::*'Memo}

¶33

1. from^{the date of recetP}

¶34

lssue^{Recovery Certiflcate accordingly'}

¶35

¶36

ffgllii'I*,*'ifr:in::"ll'""':3-;il:;

¶37

(#,B!sa*:lgl

M/S. Canara Bank v. M/S Skeedo Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Canara Bank v. M/S Skeedo 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

Patan Ayub Khan versus Axis Bank

Mrs. Iris Joseph and Others versus M/s. Shriram Finance Ltd. and others

Union Bank of India versus Sri S. Nadeem Shuieb

State Bank of India versus M/S. E.S. Square Infra Tech

M/S. Yes Bank Limited., versus Mrs. Varthya Shiprah

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Ponnambalam Chandra Sheker