Allowed

Canara Bank v. Yammanuru Lakshmamma

DRT28 Aug 2025OA/200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs.40,66,562/- with interest from two defendants. Court held defendants jointly and severally liable based on unchallenged evidence regarding loan availment, agreements, and mortgage of properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA for recovery of Rs.40,66,562/- with interest; secured by mortgage; bank entitled to proceed against defendants' dies; costs awarded.

Canara Bank versus Yammanuru Lakshmamma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

]N THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDER,ABAD DATED THIS THE TWENWEIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAtvIESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

OR]GINAL APPLICATION NO. 2OO OF 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

Canara Bank Madanapalli Branch Chittoor Dist. Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

And

¶7

YammanuruLakshmamma Wo^Latte Subbarayudu Age: Major, Occ: Business

¶8

D. No. 8/2, Chamakurivadtapalte Gurugupalle Mandal, Kadapa Dist.

¶9

Yammanuru Gopal S/o late Subbarayudu

¶10

Age: Major, Occ: Business

¶11

D. No. 8/2, Chamakurivadlapalle Gurugupalle l4andal, Kadapa Dist. ..... Defendants,

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. T. Nagender. Counsel for Oefendants : M/s. R.R. Associates.

¶13

:: ORDER::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum^of Rs.40,66,562/-^jointly and severally from defendants 1 and² along with further interest @15.15%^{per annum with monthly} /l/9'^,rr t, t!'

¶15

oa.zoo/2024

¶16

rests from 0t.O3,2O24 till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule properties.

¶17

The averments of applicant bank briefly are; defendant No.1 availed agricultural term loan of Rs.17,0O,OOO/_ against hypothecation of agricultural equipment and mortgage of OA schedule immovable properties. The loan was to be repayable in 14 half-yearly instalments of Rs.7,Zt,42g/_ commencing from 13.10.2017. Defendant No.2 stood as a guarantor. Defendant No.1 executed the loan agreement and MODT of mortgaged properties on 13.04.2017. Defendants committed breach in repayment of loan. Accordingly, loan account was classified as NpA followed by recall notice dated 20.72.2023. There is no response from defendants despite receiving the recall notice. Repeated requests and demands to discharge the debt have became futile. Hence, the present OA.

¶18

Defendants filed written statement. The relevant submissions in brlef are. they have not executed any docu ment/g ua ra ntee agreement on 13.04.2077. The loan amount was not released as per the agreement. The defendants were paying the loan amount regularly and they never committed any irregularity in operating the loan account. Applicant bank has not filed statement of account complete in all respects detailing each and every transaction. Applicant filed fabricated statement of account. Applicant bank charged interest contrary to RBI norms. Applicant bank has not explained that the loan was repayable in 14 half-yearly instalments commencing from 73.70.2077 nor did the defendants agree for payment halfyearly instalments or interest @L2.95o/o per annum compounded monthly. Applicant bank got the signatures Of 7/y'fu5ee (_/

¶19

oA,2OOl2024

¶20

defendants on blank printed formats. It shows that the blank printed formats have been filled. In view of the above irregularities, deFendants are not liable to pay the amount claimed in the OA. Hence, defendants prayed for dismissal of the OA.

¶21

Applicant Bank examined^prakash Kumar Singh, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 12 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.72.

¶22

Defendants' right of adducing evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 11.06.2025.

¶23

Both side counsel prayed that orders may be passed based on records. Perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and the OA schedule properties as prayed for?

¶26

Availment of loan is not under dispute. Though^defendants questioned the veracity of statement of account relied on by the applicant bank, they did not^choose to^{place any reconciled} statement on record^pointing out the^{specific discrepancies,if} any, reflected therein. With respect to^execution of^loan documents, the said contentions were^{refuted by the applicant} bank by^placing on record the^{Memorandumof Agreement,} Guarantee Agreement and^{Memorandum of Deposit of Title} Deeds vide exhibits^{A.3, A.4, A.6, containingthe LTl/signature} of the defendants.^{Defendants have not confrontedAW'1 to} prove that the signature/LTl^{aDoearino-on ExhibitsA.3, A 4 and} 0w**

¶27

oa.2o0l2o24

¶28

4.6 does not belong to them. Therefore, the contentions raised by the defendants on these counts are baseless and need no consideration. Similarly, by allowing their evidence forfeited, defendants made it clear that they have no issue with the exhibits A.1 to A.12 relied on by the applicant bank. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.12 marked on behalf ofthe applicant bank remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, I hold that defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.2OOl2024 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) the defendants l and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.40,66,562/- along with interest @12olo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of immovable properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is enti ed to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶32

iii) the appticant bank is entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is the costs.

¶34

oA.2OO|2024

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶37

t2. Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcernedand} upload in Web^Site'

¶38

(Dictated to the steno,^{signed and pronouncedby me in the open court on this the} 28th day of^{August, 2025)}

¶39

PRESIDING^OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Yammanuru Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Yammanuru Lakshmamma

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

gattameni vijay srinanth versus Union Bank of India

Yele Mallesappa versus Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

Dudekula Raja Hussain versus Bank of India

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Supreme Batteries

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Cepro Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kaduru Sunil Kumar