Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics

DRT3 Mar 2025OA/248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I Hyderabad allowed Canara Bank's OA for recovery of Rs.90.21 lakh loan dues and costs, finding the bank established its claim. Order also permitted proceedings against mortgaged property and the persons/properties of defendants for realization of debt. Recovery certificate issued.

What did the court decide?

allowed recovery of Rs.90,21,057.36 plus future interest and costs; authorized recovery proceedings against mortgaged property and defendants' properties; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.248 ol2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank, Aloor Bra n ch, (previously Syndicate Bank, Aloor, Aloor Mandal, Nizamabad district, Telangana State - 503 224. Rep by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics, Sole Proprietary firm, Represented by its propritrix

¶9

Mrs. Poddutoor Chitra Rani, female, #B-82/7, Mamidipally, Opp : Otd Ml Hospital, Armoor, Nizamabad dist, Telangana State - 503 224.

¶10

Mrs. Poddutoor Chitra Rani, w/o Mr. P. Devender Reddy (Female), aged major, occ: business,

¶11

Prop: M/s. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics, R/o flat no.G2, first floor, Vaishnavi Towers, Vidya Nagar Colony, Housing Board Road, Armoor, Nizamabad dist, Telangana - 503 224.

¶12

3, Mr. Poddutoori Devender Reddy, S/o Mr. Hanmanth Reddy, (Male), Aged major, occ: business, R/o flat no.G2, first floor, Vaishnavi Towers, Vidya Naga r Colony, Housing Board Road, Armoor, Nizamabad dist, Telangana - SO3 224.

¶13

6
r\ dr

¶14

(OA. No.24812023 )

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri N. Manohar Reddy

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.9O,21,O57.36ps (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Twenty One thousand Fifty Seven and paise Thirty six only) i.e.,

¶22

a) A sum of Rs.77,30,210.74ps in OD-CC loan account with interest @ 11.95% p.a with monthly rests including penal interest from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶23

b) A sum of Rs.8,59,296.31ps in working capital term loan account with interest @ 11.25olo p.a with monthly rests including penal interest from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶24

c) A sum of Rs.4,31,550.31ps in GECL Hypothecation account with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a with monthly rests including penal interest from date of application till the date of reallzation ;

¶25

and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per ,n" :f application, the Applicant Bank states that etary concern represented by its Proprietrix SOD limit of Rs.70.00 lakhs on

¶27

(oA. No.248l2023 )

¶28

09.03.2018 and executed retter of demand promissory note, retter of composite hypothecation agreement and letter of undertaking dated 15'03.2018 in favour of Appricant Bank. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement dated 15.03.2018. Defendant no.2 created mortgage over immovable property more fully described in the schedule to oA and deposited the original title deed regd sale deed no.B2l2018 dated 23.t2.2017 registered at SRO, Armoor. Defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 availed working capital term roan of Rs.14.oo lakhs on 17.07.2020 and executed demand promissory note, agreement cum deed of hypothecation and letter of proprietorship dated 77 .7 .2020. Defendants l and 2 availed GECL of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 08.11.2021 and executed necessary documents. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 04.01.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 23.12.2024.

¶30

himself as AW.1 and;dxh

¶31

lica nt Bank examined uments, which are

¶32

(oA. No.248l2023 )

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶35

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶36

prayed for?

¶37

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.2g. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶38

B' In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under:

¶39

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.9O,21,O57.36ps (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Twenty One thousand Fifty Seven and paise Thirty six only) i.e.,

¶40

a) A sum of Rs.77,30,210.74ps in OD-CC loan account with

¶41

interest @ tl.95o/o p.a excluding penal interest from date of application alization; 6

¶42

{i* It

¶43

,' :^{o3frAfr.iw *}

¶44

(oA. No.248/2023 )

¶45

b) A sum of Rs,g,59,296.31ps in working capitat term loan account with interest @ 11.25% p.a excluding penal interest from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶46

c) A sum of Rs.4,31,550.31ps in GECL Hypothecation account with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a excluding penal interest from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶47

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

10 The Appricant Bank is arso entitred 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.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

lflItXfi,:"",51HA;;*i.^{t, her,corrected, sisnedand pronounced by me in the} open court on

¶54

,'h"
.,1'ds
r11':F
sd/-
fr -r
l,'"f-' &'<br>iia 0 3 nls ztra i)i rRuE coPY '-J:'"''^T';lii"l
,o"",ffi'&,,g
W,_,r@Y n#Ir, nvornaaan-

Canara Bank v. M/S. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Laxmi Ganapathi Electronics

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

Pati Satya Narayana Reddy versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Shaik Abdul Aleem versus Indian Overseas Bank

Gudilla Babu versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Narra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Polymers versus Mahaveer Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Vangaveeti Nagender versus State Bank of India