Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Rahul Industries

DRT8 Jul 2025OA/239/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad adjudicated an Original Application for debt recovery. The court examined documents and witness testimony regarding loan accounts and allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of principal, interest, and rights over hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal sums with future interest as per account numbers specified; permission to proceed against hypothecated properties and personal/ firm properties.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rahul Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 8rH DAy oF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.239 ol 2O22

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, D. No. 3-6-69/4/ 1 / A, Avanthinagar, Opp Skylark Apartments, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, TS Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

L. M/s. Rahul Industries, Represented by its^proprietor Mr. Rahul Lachakkagiri, O/o l-7-293/4, flat no.103, Mehta towers, Ashok Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500 020.

¶10

And also at:

¶11

Premises No.4-38, Sy.No.205/E/E, Pocharam village, Ibrahimpatnam (M), Ranga Reddy district, TS- 501 506.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Lachakkagiri, s/o Sri Ramanjaneyulu, aged major, proprietor for M/s. Rahul Industries, H.No. 1-1-293 /4, flat no. 103, Mehta towers, Ashok Nagar, usheerabad, Hyderabad - 500 020.

Defendants

Pa rties:

1and2

Sri K. Bhaskar Reddy Sri MuneerBassha Shaikh

¶17

loA.239 /2022)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,63,37,687.36ps (Rupees One Crore Sixty Three Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven and paise Thirty Six only) i.e.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.56,62,189/- in respect of Loan account no.0878261555608 with current and future Interest @ 9.50% p.awith monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.67,26,327.42ps/- in respect of Loan account no.0878766000007 with current and future interest @ 10.55% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date oF realization;

¶22

c) A sum of Rs.17,94,581.94ps in respect of Loan account no.0878753000017with current and future interest @ 7.30o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶23

d) A sum of Rs.21,54,589/- in respect of Loan account no.087875500022 with current and future interest @ 7.50% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of

¶24

It for sale of hypothecated properties as described in oA.

¶25

loA.239 /20221

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor / defendant no.2 availed loan or Rs.95.00 lakhs under CGTMSE on 25.09,2019. The defendants availed a sum of Rs.45.00 lakhs on hypothecation of stocks and book debts as primary securities. The defendants availed request for overdraft facilities, common hypothecation, letter of undertaking, letter of proprietorship, pronote etc. The occ/ ODBD loan account for a sum of Rs.45.00 lakhs has been revived on 14.t2.2020, The defendants availed working capital demand loan of Rs.15,75,000/_ on 24.04.2020 and executed supplemental common hypothecation agreement, letter of undertaking, undertaking letter from corporate borrowers and pronote. on 05.06.2020, the defendants avaired working capital demand loan facility of Rs.1g,90,000/_and executed necessary documents.

¶27

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 on27.12.2020. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants

¶28

H^o,^{regularized'the account, and the Applicant bank issuedlegal} d<sup>ffiI.$N\g3.06.2022, but the defendantsdid not come forward tu e. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is : 0 &,J["W$3,3r, 7.36ps (Rupees One Crore Sixty Three Lakhs .d,.*^Thirty SOr Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven and Wa;qt!,,

¶29

(oA.23el2O22l

¶30

paiseThirty Six only)with future interest @ 7.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶31

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the hypothecation 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 charged the interest without following the guidelines of RBI and declared the account as NPA. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and filed documents which are exhibited as Ex.B.1 to B.3.

¶32

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶33

Heard the arguments.

¶34

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) To what relief ?

¶37

Point No.i):

¶38

Ms. KiranmaiModugu, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. A.33 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish defenda nts.

rn mF *

(oA.239/2022)

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No.2 examined himself 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 normar 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 and 2 are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenabre. Hence the appricant bank is entitred to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 and 2.

¶43

Point No.ii)

¶44

B' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as u nd er:

¶45

The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to Applicant il sum of Rs.1,63,37,6g7.36ps (Rupees One Crore s Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and * irty Six onty) i.e., Jtr^..{fi LI :"

¶46

loA.239l2022)

¶47

a) A sum of Rs.56,62,189/- in respect of Loan account no.0878261555608 with current and future interest @ 9.50o/o p.afrom date of filing of OA till the date of reatization;

¶48

b) A sum of Rs.67,26,327.42ps/- in respect of Loan account no.0878766000007 with current and future interest @ 10.55% p.afrom date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶49

c) A sum of Rs. 17 ,94,58L.94ps in respect of Loan account no.0878753000017with current and future interest @ 7.30o/o p.afrom date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶50

d) A sum of Rs.21,54,589/- in respect of Loan account no.087875500022 with current and future interest @ 7.50o/o p.a from date oF filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶51

9' The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated property as described in the schedule to oA towards the realization of the debt due.

¶52

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

¶53

nk is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶54

(oA.23s/2022)

¶55

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

¶56

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶57

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶58

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of July, 2025)

¶59

sd/-

¶60

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

*.
s
E}<br>. '"--:i

¶62

r,#:'M::{^"

Canara Bank v. M/S. Rahul Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Rahul Industries

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

Banoth Ramesh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mr Chukka Shashidhar versus Axis Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Advik Dental, Hair, Skin Maxillofacial Implants Hospitals

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Palnati Vamsi Krishna

Smt Sangavarapu Kalyani versus Karur Vysya Bank

Maspelly Vittal versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.