Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Sura Jyothi Kalyan

DRT13 Nov 2025OA/154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of an education loan, the Tribunal allowed the petition despite respondents appearing ex parte. The Bank established its case through official evidence and was granted recovery against mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 54,53,609.88 with interest, joint and several liability of respondents, right to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Sri Sura Jyothi Kalyan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

OA. No. 154 OF 2025

Between:

Canara Bank,

Hi-Tech AF Abids Branch,

¶7

Hyderabad - 500 001,

¶8

Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Sri. Sura Jyothi Kalyan,

¶12

S/o Mr. Sura Mohan Rao,

¶13

Occ: Business.

¶14

R/o. H.No. 1-9-25219126, Quarter No. 26, EWS Site-ll,

¶15

Situated at MCH East Colony, Opposite MCH Park, Parsigutta,

¶16

Hyderabad - 500 044.

¶17

SmL Boddepalli Nirmala,

¶18

Wo Mr. Sura Mohan Rao,

¶19

Aged about 64 years, Occ: Business.

¶20

R/o. H.No. 1-9-25219126, Quarter No.26, EWS Site-ll,

¶21

Situated at MCH East Colony, Opposite MCH Park, Parsigutta,

Hyderabad - 500 044.

1e Nri|" nn

(OA. No. 1s4l202s)

Also At :

Flat No. 401, Ward No. 8 Block No. 7, Situated at RKR Enclave, lndraprastha Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal under GHMC L B Nagar Circle Ranga Reddy District - 500 079.

¶27

Sri. Sura Mohan Rao, S/o Mr. S Narasimhulu, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Business. R/o. H.No. 1-9-25219126, Quarter No. 26, EWS Site-ll, Situated at MCH East Colony, Opposite MCH Park, Parsigutta, Hyderabad - 500 044.

¶28

Also At :

¶29

Flat No. 401, Ward No. 8 Block No. 7, Situated at RKR Enclave, lndraprastha Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal under GHMC L B Nagar Circle Ranga Reddy Dlstrict - 500 079. Defendants

¶30

Counsel for the^parties:

¶31

For The Applicant A. Sravanthi, Forthe Defendants 1 and2 Exparte For the P. Ravi

¶32

10.11.2025 13.11.2025 Upload in 13.11.2025 1 3 iltt1^?{rtr

¶33

(OA. No. 1s4l202s)

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.G4,53,609.88/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Nine and paise Eighty Eight Only) with contractual rate of interest @ 10.7oo/o p.a as on 21.03.2025 tillthe date of realization and in default for Mortgaged Properties as mentioned in the Schedules A and B to oA.

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 is the borrower and Defendant No. 2 is the Co- borrower and Defendant No. 3 is a Personal Guarantor availed Educational Loan of Rs.76 Lakhs and exexuted Educational Loan Agreement dated 05.01.2016. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued Demand notice on 06.03.2023 and 17.01.2025 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act,2002. lnspite of severat requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶37

Sri. P.Ravi filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendant No.3 . Even after of D3 not filed and hence the right of 01.09.2025. Defendants No. 1 and on 11.08.2025.

¶38

(OA. No. 1s4l202s)

¶39

Sri. C.N Swamy, Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.23.

¶40

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶41

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶42

Defendants No. 1 and 2 remained exparte and Defendant No.3 not filed his Ws even after availing sufficient time and so his right of filing of WS forfeited. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.23. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶43

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶44

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.54,53,609.88/- (Rupees Sixty Four Three Thousand Six Hundred Nine and )^{with interest} @^{10.70%p.a as on} 21.03.2025fl\ ization.

13N|[?w

(oA. No. 1s4l202s)

L The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged Properties mentioned in the Schedule A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶49

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 1 to 3 towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶51

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶52

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶54

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open @urt on this the 13ih day of Nov, 2025)

¶55

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Sura Jyothi Kalyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Sura Jyothi Kalyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (Died)

Sai Balaji Function Hall versus State Bank of India

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Ciddagouni Tarun Kumar Goud

Stephen Lamination Plant versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Smt. Boddepalli Nirmala