Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. Madepalli Pratap Reddy

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/230/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Origin Application for recovery of a vehicle loan debt totaling Rs.25,72,541.07 plus interest, holding the borrowers jointly liable and granting permission for enforcement against hypothecated property.

What did the court decide?

The court ordered the repayment of Rs.25,72,541.07 with future interest, allowed sale of hypothecated property, and authorized recovery proceedings against person and properties.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Madepalli Pratap Reddy — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA,No.23O of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Erstwhile Syndicate Bank, Malakpet branch, O/o first floor, H.No.16-2-705, 17 & 18, Mumtaz college road, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036. Represented by its authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. MadepalliPratap Reddy, s/o M. Ambi Reddy, aged about 73 years, male, occ: business, R/o H. No.B-2 -293/ 82/ A/77 6, Road no.39, Jubllee hills,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶11

Also at

¶12

3-5-784/2/8/4, Sri Sai Heights, King Koti, Hyderabad - 500 029.

¶13

Mrs. MadepalliKalavathi, w/o M. Pratap Reddy, aged about 67 years, femle, occ: business, R/o H. No.B-2 -293 / 82/ A/71 6, Road no.39, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad - 500 033. trr\ Also at 7 l***3-5-784/2/B/A, Sri Sai King Koti, Hyderabad - Defenda nts H^{o;, I ,tuu} zM^* h+. ^^.=I SmqP

¶14

(oA.23012023)

¶15

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant

¶16

Sri ManavGecil Thomas

¶17

Defendants No. 1 and 2 Sri PSN Ravindra

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2S,72,541.O7ps (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs seventy Two Thousand Five hundred Forty one and paise seven only) with future interest @ 11.6go7op.a from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a borrower and defendant no.2 coborrower availed vehicre loan of Rs.56.00 rakhs on 14.03.2015. The defendants executed composite hypothecation agreement dated 18.03.2015. The loan was granted for purchase of Audi e5 car bearing Registration No.TS 09EG 2448 and hypothecated the vehicre in favour of Appricant bank. The defendants arso executed acknowledgement of debt and security dated 27.11.2020.

¶21

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have avail iSfj.Q:T facitities and faited ro keep up the i^{'Y9),,.'r</sup> edul account was classified as NpA on 01 . 12. ade by Applicant the defendants 3^,fry,qlff ffiandt t,r11 r}

¶22

(oA.230120231

¶23

have not regularized the account, and the Appricant bank issued legal notice dated 29.I0.2021, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total craim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.25,72,541.O7ps (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Five hundred Forty one and paise seven only) with future interest @ 11.60% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants denied the hypothecation of vehicle of schedule mentioned property. It is denied that the defendants executed loan documents, demand promissory notes etc. It is further contended that the applicant bank obtained the signatures of defendants on blank printed formats and Applicant bank charged the interest without following the guidelines of RBI. Hence prayed for dismissal of oA. Defendant no.1 examinedhimself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶25

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶26

Heard the arguments.

¶27

Now, sideration a re:
1g JUilm
I
q--,.Y

¶28

lo^A.230/2023)

¶29

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶30

ii) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.i):

¶32

Sri Prasantha Kumar Barik, Chief Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.7 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defenda nts.

¶33

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.1 examinedhimserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusar of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particurars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circum m of opinion that the defense taken by the defenda nce the applicant bank is entitled to d+.ff; rP claim OA amlirint fro ndants. Therefore, the OA claim dese o oJJ"dlJt@,.,# defendants No.1 and 2.

¶34

lo^A.230/2023)

¶35

Point No.ii)

¶36

o. In the result, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶37

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2S,l2,S4l.O7ps (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Five hundred Forty one and paise seven onry) with future interest @ 11.600/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of reatization;

¶38

9, The Appricant bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated property as described in the schedule to oA towards the realization of the debt due.

¶39

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1gth day of June, 2025)

¶45

sd/-
.t qE<br>'.,
i,P (G. GOPTCHAND)
TRUE gOPY, PRESIDING OFFICER
E 19 luN1/tVS :
rP- ",
0 e [6;-n'
r'.),S.
oir'1, xYegt'l'ae'n'l
W,or?$9 5
ilt;H?"'W

Canara Bank v. Mr. Madepalli Pratap Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. Madepalli Pratap Reddy

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Krishna Venkatesh

M/S. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation versus M/S. Jgb Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Devara Suresh Rao

N Kesava Reddy versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Precise Design and Engineering

State Bank of India versus Mr. Chintal Somashekar Reddy