Allowed

Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) v. M/S. Bright Waste Technologies

DRT9 Sept 2025OA/155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by the bank for recovery of dues totaling approximately 1.16 crore from three defaulting debtors, who remained in absentia. The bank's evidence clinched the claim, leading to an order for joint and several liability with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay 1,16,64,330.99 with interest and costs; recovery certificate issued against mortgaged properties and defendants.

Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) versus M/S. Bright Waste… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TR]BUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE O9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 155 OF 2025

¶4

Canara Bank (e-syndicate Ba nk) Ameerpet Branch - II Viswas Cental, 6-3-852/ 3 / A Survey No.201, Institute of Genetics Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016. Rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶5

,....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lvl/s. Bright Waste Technologies., Rep its Proprietor Alapati Renuka Devi 1-442, Flat No.1, Ground Floor Sri Rama Apartments, Neh runaga r Yelahanka Old Town, Ba ngalore-560064. Rep by its Proprietrix.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Ivlunicipa I Solid Waste Plant Thirumala Tiru^pathl, Andhra Pradesh-517504.

¶10

Also at:-

¶11

16 & 39, BType Quarters, Tirumala Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh - 517504.

¶12

Also at:-

¶13

Flat No.G2, Emerald, I Block, Rainbow Vistas, Rock Garden, Cyber City, Green Hills RD, Moosapet, Iv'ledchal - l4alkajgiri Hyderabad - 500018.

¶14

Smt. Alapati Renuka Devi W/o. Madamanchi Ramesh Babu, Major Female, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.G2 Emerald, J Block, Rainbow Vistas, Rock Garden, Cyber City, Green Hills RD, Moosapet Medchal - Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500018, T'. ir>

¶15

oA.NO.1ss/2025

¶16

¶17

Sri N'ladamanchi Ramesh Babu S/o. Sri Veeraiah, Major Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.379 Pedapalakaluru, Flat No.402 3'd Floor, Sri Sai Lakshmi Towers Adj. Road of Padmini Krishna Kalayana Mandapam, Pedapalakaluru Road Gu ntur Municipal Corporation Guntur District, A.P - 522004. ... Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant 14r. Gampa Ra nga ia h Defendants Ex- parte

¶19

:: ORDER ::

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,16,64,330.99ps i.e., a sum of Rs.82,022.52ps towards MSME-TL A/c. No.04349910000331 with interest @10.650lo p.a., a sum of Rs.2,40,167.08ps towards MSME-TL A/c. No.04349910000349 with interest @10.650/0 p.a., a sum of Rs.1,7O,64,728.49ps towards SODH (Working Capital) facility A/c. No.04341400000129 with interest @12olo p.a. and a sum of Rs.2,77 ,412.90ps towards GECL A/c. No.04349160000151 with interest @9.25olo p.a. from the defendants joinfly and severally with monthly rests from 01.01.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶21

Summons served on D1 and 2, whereas summons served on D3through paper publication. They were set exparte on 22.08.2023 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined G.Meghanadh, Sr. Manager, as AW-1 and marked 80 documents throqgh her as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.Bo. A>'^qf -y'^'Qq"'

¶23

oA.NO.15s/202s

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.^perused the material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for considera on is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.80 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank agatnst the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present Originat Application No.155/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Appticant Bank a totat sum of Rs.1,16,64,330.99ps i.e., a sum of Rs.82,022.52ps towards l,lSME-TL A/c. No. 04349910000331, a sum of Rs.2,40,167.08ps towards MSME-TL A/c. No. 04349910000349, a sum of Rs. 7,70,64,7 2A.49ps towards SODH (Working Capital) facility A/c. No.04341400000129 and a sum of Rs.2,77 ,412.90ps towards GECL A/c.No.04349160000151; with futUre interest fg**

¶30

oA.NO.1s512025

¶31

¶32

@10.1olo^p.a. simple from^{the dateof} application till the date of^realization;

¶33

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of^mortgage oF properties described in the^schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant^bankis entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶34

iii ) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and^{properties of} defendants for realization of its dues;

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the^costs.

¶36

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to File Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to^{the paftiesconcerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^pronounced by me^{in the open courton} this the 09th Day of September,^2025).

¶39

ffi,r (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) v. M/S. Bright Waste Technologies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) v. M/S. Bright Waste Technologies

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

Smt Syeda Kulsum Fatima versus Indian Overseas Bank

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Ragineni Viswa Mohan

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Global Yarntex (India) Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Boya Moolinti Parvathamma

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Laxmi Durga Wines

Canara Bank versus Ganapathiraju Praneel Varma