Allowed

Canara Bank v. Konathala Uday Kiran

DRT17 Dec 2025OA/224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application enforcing security under the SARFAESI Act. The debt was characterized as NPA; notices were issued to borrowers and guarantor. Defendants were ex-parte or forfeited time to file written statements. The bank was entitled to recover the principal, future interest, and proceed against mortgaged and personal property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.64,75,008/- with future interest at 11.90% p.a.; order to sell mortgaged property; recovery from personal properties of respondents; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Konathala Uday Kiran — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRTBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER,2025 PRESENT: SRt cUMMADt cOptCHAND, pREStDING OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 224 OF 2O2S

¶3

Between :

¶4

Canara Bank, Chikkadapally Branch, Hyderabad Represented by its Senior Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Konathala Uday Kiran, S/o Sri Adi Narayana Konathal, Aged Major, Occ: private Employee. H. No.8-2-693 t2tct\t 1, lnside Kaman Mithiula Nagar, Khairatabad, Banjara Hills Road No. 12, Hyderabad S00 034

¶8

Smt. HiteshiDutta, Wo. Konathala Uday Kiran, Aged Major, Occ: private Employee. H. No.8-2-693 t2tcl5t 1, lnside Kaman Mithiula Nagar, Khairatabad, Banjara Hills Road No. 12, Hyderabad 500 034 .4-4| 1l\EC4ItX *

¶9

(oA. No.2Z4/2Ozs)

¶10

M/s. BECCUN lnfrastructures Limited, R^epresented by its Managing Director, 102, Model House, Punjagutta, Hyderabad _ 500 0g2

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the parties : For The Appticant Dishit Bhattacharjee For the Defendants No..l and 2 Exparte For the Defendant No.3 B.N. Radha Krishna yadav Reserved on 16.12.2025 Pronounced on 17.12.2025 Upload in website on 17.12.2025

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants No. .l ::1r-ar^rl.*, of a totat sum of Rs.64,75,008/- (Rupees Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand anct Eisht onty) l.l:,r.i::r with future interesl @ 1O.gO% p.a with monthty ;.;; 5 till the date of realization and in default for sale of as mentioned in the Schedule of A property

¶15

-*
*l
a.

¶16

(oA. No. z24/zo2s)

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 and 2 availed Housing Loan Facility of Rs'72'00 Lakhs repayable in 348 equated monthly installments of Rs.56,037/_ and executed Housing Loan Agreement dated 21.10.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendant no. 1 and 2 created equitable mortgage and deposited tifle deeds in favor of the Appricant Bank.The Defendants No. 1 to 3 executed Tripartite Agreement dared 21.10.2022 toformarize the terms of disbursing the housing loan and security for the same. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued Demand notice dated 29.01.2025 under section 13920 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to the defendants and legal notice dated 30.01.2025 to Defendant no. 3 lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶18

Sri. B.N. Radha Krishna yadav filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendant No. 3. Even after the lapse of 45 Days WS of Defendant No.3 not filed and hence the right of fiting of WS of Defendant No. 3 was forfeited on 25.09.2025. Defendants No. 1 and bsent and set exparte on 04.09.2025 and

¶19

(OA. No.224/2O2Sl

¶20

Sri. Banoth Manthu, Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

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

¶23

Defendant no. 3 did not file his WS even after availing sufficient time and hence the right of firing of ws of Defendant No. 3 was forfeited. Defendants No. 1 and 2 called absent and set 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..l to A.g. 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 entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

The severally liable to of Rs.64,75,00g/(Rupees Thousand and Eight p.a from 01.05.2025 tiil of 17 0[c ,fi25

¶27

(oA. No.22412o2s)

¶28

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property mentioned in the Schedule of A property to the OA

¶29

towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

12, The Appricant sha, fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶33

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the p.A., transcribed bv I uy ')er, @nected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶35

ttris ttrati_iav oiil;;"d;"

¶36

6ru-%<br>r, 17 ilEE ?M6 rt
€ ..*
\Yr "''' 'Tl
1

¶37

sd/-
(c. GoPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Y
]z{v-

Canara Bank v. Konathala Uday Kiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Konathala Uday Kiran

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

Union Bank of India versus Sri Sridevi Vignatha Granites

Ms Vamsi Furniture World versus State Bank of India

Sri Elapolu Vara Prasad versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anu Enterprises

Trinetra Jewellers versus Canara Bank

Pokkili Murali Kalyan versus State Bank of India