Allowed

Canara Bank v. K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a housing loan amount. After summoning the defendant ex-parte, the court examined evidence and held the defendant liable to pay the claim amount with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 51,15,144.44 with future interest at 8.20% p.a., coupled with mortgage rights over property and entitlement to costs. Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Canara Bank versus K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAT4ESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB. (HonS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 253 oF 2025

¶4

Canara Bank., Ameerpet - 2 Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu S/o. Late Mariya Dasu Reddy masu Aged 43 Years, Occ: Service H.No.7-2-93, Bairamatguda, Sai Nagar Colony, Saroornagar. Ranga Reddy Dist Telangana - 500079.

¶8

...Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applica nt

¶10

M/s. Dishit Bhattacha rjee

Defenda nt

Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

1, The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.51,15,744.44ps towards Housing Loan Facility from the defendant with future interest @11.600/0 p.a. compounded monthly rests from 01.03.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 37.07.2025 as called absent and no representation. ffi"*

¶16

oA.NO.253l2025

¶17

¶18

The Applicant Bank^{examinedG. Meghanadh, Senior Manager,} as AW-1 and marked^{12 documentsthrough him as Ex'A 1to} Ex.A.12.

¶19

Ld, Counsel for the Applicant^{Bank stated orders may be passed} on merits. Perused^{the materialplaced on record.}

¶20

The^point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶21

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendant and OA^schedule property?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant^{remainedex-parte.The} Evidence Affidavit coupled with the^{recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to A.12 marked on^{behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of the^{Applicant Bank againstthe Defendant.} Hence, I hold that the Defendant^{is liable to pay the OA claim to} the Applicant Bank with^{futureinterestand costs.}

¶23

In the result, the^{present Original Application No.25312025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to^the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.51,15,144.44ps towards Housing Loan Facility with^future interest @8.20lo p.a. simple from the^{date of} application till the date of^realization;

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of moftgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant^bankis ,'fuga",5^

¶26

12t^{':tt'u^}

¶27

¶28

oA.NO.2s3l202s

¶29

entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶30

iii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶32

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within Z weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶33

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dktated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounc;d OV ," i" tn" op"n aorat on this the 2sth Day ofSeptembe,2025).

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

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

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. B Rajaiah

Kothamidde Venkataramana versus Hdfc Bank

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Bank of India versus M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Muneeswara Traders

Canara Bank versus Akshay Singh