Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's Original Application against M/s. SreeNihar Industries and Smt Yamuna Yarlagadda for recovery of principal and interest, granting execution relief against mortgaged assets.
Relief to pay Rs. 87,62,761.45 with future interest and right to proceed against mortgaged movables and other properties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THrS THE 6rH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
OA.No.288 ol 2023
Between:
Canara Bank, N.S. Road branch,
D.No.5-3- 1062, Veerji Towers, Osmangunj area, Opp Hotel lewel Residency, Near Old P.S. Begumpet Bazar, Hyderabad - 500 001. TS. Represented by its GPA and Chief Manager
Applica nt
VERSUS
Represented by its proprietor Smt Yamuna Yarlagadda, H.No.7-2-6lDG/10, flat no.405, Sri Sai Jagapat Towers, Durganagar, Hyderabad - 500 079. Telangana State.
Also at:
M/s. SreeNihar Industries,
Rep by its Proprietor Smtyamuna Yarlagadda, shed no.IV, sy.No.17, Kawadipally village, Balijaguda road, Abdullapurmetmandal, TS - 501 s05.
f/6'
IqSffi
lrP
&5
o 6 ilAyzffi
;
(OA.288 of 2023)
Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri M.V. Kini For the Defendants Sri C. C. Sreedhar
Sri C. C. Sreedhar
ORDER
And in default for sale of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.
(oA.288 of 2023)
defendants executed composite deed of hypothecation agreement dated 30.03.2019. The defendants availed GECL of Rs.19.00 lakhs on 2L.09.2020 accepting the terms and conditions as stipurated in the sanction. After execution of necessary roan security documents by defendants, the Applicant bank disbursed the working capital term loan under GECL of rs.19.00 lakhs to defendant no.1 loan account.
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 on 30.03.2021 and issued demand notice dated 27.04.2021. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.87,62,761.45ps (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty One and paise Forty five only)with future interest @ 10.85o/o p.a and @ 9.25o/o p.arespectively with monthly rests from 01.8.2023 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.
- The Defendants No.1 & 2 filed written statement and denied the ave rm en defendants denied the execution of docu m schedule property. It is submitted icant bank got signatures on blank by the. aerenfla6t16lr?U5h" &
(oA.288 of 2023)
printed formats and denied the classification of account as NpA without following the RBI guidelines. It is further submitted that the Applicant bank capitalized the penal interest which is against the law. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.
ii) To what re tief z tfL"art; " {j','.; Yi
t-:J
fl rF
Point No.i ) : !ll+
ft f,f 1,,:1{ :
r.^, I :
: {(: o6 ,.) ;,- l)
W,*.
, , ,. . \t..'..,f.:,, '''i'f,
\tt-."
'-.--:
(OA.288 of 2023)
6' As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very crear that the defendants have avaired roan from the Appricant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are crearry mentioned in the statement of account fired by Appricant Bank. The defendants have not praced any materiar documents to show their bonafides for estabrishing that they have not availed loan from the Applicant bank.
AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substanilate that their riabirity is ress than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not hypothecated the movabres as mentioned in schedure to oA' Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupred with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.9 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are llable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.
Point No.ii)
7' In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as u nde r:
The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Sixty Twoi,'*ousa red Sixty One and paise Forty rive on.ty; i{1, ;. !, $ . -r \j:ir,+. .!1 .lr X::, . .. .
(oA.288 of 2023)
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of l"lay, 2025)
sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
0 6 ilAY 2m5
ffi6
ani-r,i'rcE-eneln
1 issue framed by the court
Whether applicant bank proved entitlement to recover against respondents for non-payment of term loan and GECL.
Canara Bank, N.S. Road branch
M/s. SreeNihar Industries
Smt Yamuna Yarlagadda
SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
