Allowed

Canara Bank v. Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

DRT26 Aug 2025OA/237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT allowed the Applicant Bank's OA for recovery of Rs.22.82 lakhs. The Court held the defendants liable as the bank proved execution of agreements, noting the defendants failed to place substantial proof for their plea of partial disbursement or limitation.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.22,82,624.67 with future interest; Applicant entitled to recovery certificate and costs.

Canara Bank versus Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd. — Consumer Protection | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 26rH DAy OF AUGUST,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.237 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Shalibanda Branch, Hyderabad - 500 065. Represented by its Power Of Attorney holder Mr. Banala Rajesh

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

DVN Food Works Pvt Ltd, Represented by partners Smt Kileru Alivelu Mangamma and Smt Nandelli Supraja, Sy.no.B/8, Bachupally,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 010.

¶11

Smt Kileru Alivelu, W/o Laxminarayana, aged 54 , Occ:business, R/o 10-17,

¶12

Pedakurapadu, Guntur- 502 402.

¶13

Smt Nandelli Supraja, N. Ramachander Rao, Aged 30 years, occ: business, H. No.2-B-49l1, auto nagar, Siricilla Mandalam, Karimnagar district - 505 301.

Defendants

Counsel for

2SNlc?ffi

Sri G. Adrian Kiran Raj Sri M. Sai Kiran

¶18

(OA.No.237 of 2024)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,82,624.67ps (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four and paise Sixty Seven only) i.e.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.14,97,868..29ps with future interest @ B.B0% p.a with monthly rests from 1,5.04.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.7,84,756.38ps with future interest @ 8.40olo p.a with monthly rests from 15.04.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is the principle borrower and defendants no.2 & 3 are guarantors who availed term loan of Rs.18.00 lakhs on L7.11.2021. The defendants executed agreement cum deed of hypothecation on 76.L)..2021 by way of charge as securlty for the repayment of the facilities. The defendants availed cash credit of Rs.25.00 lakhs and executed guarantee agreement. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified'as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the d regularized the account, and the Applicant ,tffi1.,"d 04.03.2023, but rhe defendants did ttrliflIqrffi repelithe same. rhe total claim of Applicant f".?

¶24

Rh*.,*fW

¶25

(OA.No.237 of 2024)

¶26

against defendants is of Rs.22,82,624.67ps^{(Rupees TwentyTwo} Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty^{Four and paise} Sixty Seven only) with future^interest @^{B.B0o/o p.a From} 15.04.2024 till the date of realization.^{Hence the OA.}

¶27

The Defendant No.2 filed written^{statement and defendants1 and 3} adopted the same and denied the^{averments madein OA. It is} contended that no documents were filed^{by defendants in favour of} Applicant bank. It is further contended^{that the defendants signedon} blank documents and the^{Applicant bankwas not promptto release} the loan amount. It is further stated^{that the defendants availed only} partial amount of loan facility as the Applicant bank did^{not disburse} the whole loan amount. It is submitted^{by the defendantsthat a sum} of Rs.7,50,000/- was^paid to the^Applicant bank.^{Hence prayed for} dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2^{examined herself as DW.1 but not} filed any documents.

¶28

I have^perused the documents^{placedon record'}

¶29

Heard the arguments.

¶30

Now, the points- tha.tj?rise for consideration^are: ,.4t^{" -} :-**\ made in OA

¶31

O^{wffiWgi$-e$iil\tankhas proved its claim as} .r" s;" og&,0.;,*

¶32

(OA.No.237 of 2024)

¶33

Point No.i):

¶34

Sri Shakeer Shaik, Senior Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the^defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.13 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly^establish the liability of the defendants.

¶35

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants.^{Even though} defendant No.2 examined herself as DW.1,^{her evidenceis in noway} helpful to her. The defendants having taken the^{plea that the} Applicant bank disbursed only^partial amounts^{and that the present} OA was barred by limitation, failed to^{placeany substantial proof to} that effect. Moreover, a^perusal of the^{documentsexhibited by the} Applicant bank makes clear that all the^{relevant documentsare} executed by the defendants in the^{normal course of transaction.The} defendants very vaguely contended that^{particulars made in the OA} are not correct. But as^per the^{statement of accounts, the defendants} No.1 to 3 are liable to^pay the OA claim.^{Considering all the} circumstances, I am of opinion that^{the defense taken by the} defendant is not tenable.^{Hencethe applicant bank is entitled to claim} the OA amount from defendants.^{Therefore,the OA claim deserves} No.1 to 3.

¶36

Point No.ii

¶37

(OA.No.237 of 2024)

¶38

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed wlth costs as under:

¶39

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,82,624.67ps (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four and paise

¶40

Sixty Seven only) i.e.,

¶41

a) A sum of Rs.14,97,868..29ps with future interest @ 8.80o/o p.a from 15.04.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶42

b) A sum of Rs.7,84,756.38ps with future interest @ 8.40olo p.a from 15.04.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶46

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

,^{transcribed by her,} corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 2025)

¶49

sdl-

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESTDTNG oFFrcER
'*'55ffi<br>

¶51

lrt.RaglstrarlqtU

Canara Bank v. Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Dvn Food Works Pvt. Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Srinika Slipper Manufacturers

M S P v Amarnadha Prasad and Co. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Suryanarayana J

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peketi Raja Sekhar

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kallepelli Mahesh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Arunima Chekka Ganuga Oils