Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Upvc Windows and Grills

DRT3 Dec 2025OA/200/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of dues amounting to approx Rs. 34.60 Lakhs from a proprietorship firm and its guarantors. The Court found the defendants absent and the bank's claim substantiated by documentary evidence, awarding recovery including future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed. Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 34,60,974/- plus future interest and costs. Recovery from hypothecated movables and properties allowed.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Upvc Windows and Grills — Dowry and Cruelty | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3Td DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADI cOPICHAND, PREStDING OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 200 OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank, Hanmakonda -l Branch, Ground Floor, Plot No A2l1 , Vikasila Park,

¶6

Hanamkonda Warangal - 506 001. Representated by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. STiUPVC Windows & Grills,

¶10

Rep. by its Prop. Sri Dumpala^praveen,

¶11

D.No. 3-9-455, Reddy Cotony,

¶12

Road No. I Hanamkonda, warrangal - 506 001.

¶13

Sri. Dumpala Praveen,

¶14

S/o. Sri D Ramula,

¶15

Occ: Business,

¶16

R/o. H.No. 2-4-12041 16 & 2-4-1204t 17, Plot No's 38,39,40,41 ,42 &43 Ftat No.50,

¶17

Kuteers's Vrushabhadri Sy No. 279 of

¶18

Lashkar singaram Village, Gandhi nagar,

¶19

Hanamkonda - 506 002.

¶20

lis^{u 3 llt0} 266^* \fu**Y

¶21

(oA. No. 200/202s)

¶22

3. Smt. Dumpala Soujanya,

¶23

Wo. Sri Dumpala Praveen,

¶24

Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2-4-12041 16 & 2-4-1204t 17, Plot No's 38,39,40,41 ,42 &43 Ftat No.50, Kuteers's Vrushabhadri Sy No. 279 of Lashkar singaram Village, Gandhi nagar, Hanamkonda - 506 002.

¶25

Defendants

¶26

Counsel for the parties :

¶27

ForTheApplicant	M. Srinivas
Forthe Defendant	Exparte
Reservedon	24.11.2025
Pronouncedon	03.12.2025
Uploadinwebsiteon	03.12.2025

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.34,60,974/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Four Only) i.e asumof-

¶30

Lakhs Seventeen with future interest @^13. p.a) from the date the realization. QPPlicatio

¶31

(oA. No.2oo/2o2sl

¶32

(ii) Rs.{ 0,43,4891- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine Only) with future interest @ 13.25o/o p.a (including Penal interest @ 2% p.a) from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶33

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedules A to OA.

¶34

¶35

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 is a Proprietorship Firm Represented By its proprietor Defendant No. 2 availed Cash Credit Facility of Rs.30.00 Lakhs with interest @ 11.1%p.a apart from penal interest @ 2o/o monthly rests and executed Cash Credit Agreement dated 18.03.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No.3 stood as a guarantor and executed Deed of Guarantee dated 18.03.2023. The Defendants avaied Term Loan facifity of Rs.9.50 Lakhs with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a along with penal interest 2 25 monthly rests to be repayable at Rs.17 ,2401per month for a period of 82 months and executed Letter of Deed of Hypothecation Agreement dated 19.04.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to.comply::ttte terms of rrnition, hence the applicant bank on I requests and demands, the an$ $i$gptffiar thc ing. Hence this OA.

¶36

(OA. No. 200/202s)

¶37

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 09.09.2025.

¶38

Sri. Jakka Nagaraju, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶39

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶40

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?

¶41

Defendants remained exparte. 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.1to A.16. ln view of the above, I hold that the^{Applicant Bankhas} established their claim made in the OA^{against the Defendants} and hence the Applicant Bank is^{entitledto recover the claim} made in the OA with future interest^{and costs.}

¶42

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

¶43

The DefendaDefenda I and 2 are^jointly and severally^{liable to} pay a total sum of Rs.34,60,974/-^(Rupees

¶44

The DefendaDefenda

¶45

(OA. No. 200/202s)

¶46

Thirty Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Four Only) i.e a sum of -

¶47

(i) Rs.24,17,485/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Five Only) with future interest @^{11.50o/op.a from the date} of this application till the date of realization.

¶48

(ii) Rs.10,43,489/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine Only) with future interest @ 11.25% p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶49

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables mentioned in the Schedule A to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶50

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 and 3 and properties of defendant No.1 towards realization of the debt due.

¶51

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

¶52

The a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶53

(oA. No. 200/202s)

¶54

13. lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶55

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3d day of Dec, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

f-q-'.i
fiP #
nTRtIE cWX .
j'O3oEc?m : I l^ Q:\r'-<a--rv
rv'. r47''

¶61

Asf-^Raglstnr DRT.T,^HYDERABAD.

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Upvc Windows and Grills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Upvc Windows and Grills

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

Jithender Nagabelly versus Sriram finance limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Guru Krupa Powerloom Industry

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gabbeta Vijay Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Fenoplast Limited

M/s Rr Gundlapalli versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Bhagat Fruit Company