Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. N. Goverdhan Reddy

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/318/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an Originating Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a debt owed by a borrower who defaulted on agricultural and credit card loans. The court rejected the defense of absence and directed the payment of the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Bank is entitled to recovery of Rs. 33,87,392.55 plus future interest and costs; proceedings against mortgaged property authorized; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus Mr. N. Goverdhan Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SRt cUMMADt cOptCHAND, PREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No.318 OF 2025

¶3

Between:

¶4

Canara Bank, Narayan Pet Branch, Narayan Pet post & Mandal & District, Telangana - 509 210. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS Mr. N. Goverdham Reddy, S/o GopalReddy,H.N, Aged about 42 years, R/o Peddajatram Village & post, MaktalMandal, Narayan Pet District (Erstwhile Mahaboob Nagar District) Telangana pin code: 509 314. Defendant Counsel for the parties : For The Applicant B. Sivakumar Exparte 07.11.2025 12.11.2025 Upload in website on 13.11.2025 ,^{12 ti1l|"} 7W

(oA. No. 318/202s)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.33,87,392.55/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two and Paise Fifty Five Only) i.e a sum of -

¶11

(i) Rs.33,32,565.50 (Rupees Thifi Three Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and paise Fifty Only) as on 31.03.2025 with future interest @ 14.20% p.a with monthly rests till the date of realization;

¶12

(i) Rs.54,827.05 (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Five Onty) as on 31.03.2025 with future interesl @ 9o/o p.a on daily basis till the date of realization;

¶13

and in default for sale of Mortgaged^property as mentioned in the Application A Schedule to OA.

¶14

¶15

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant (borrower) availed Agricultural Mortgage Loan of Rs.3,00,000.00 with interest @ 11.5o/o p.a with compound interest and exe-,quted Agreement and Deed for Kisan OD dated 26.09.2007 i of the applicant bank. The defendant created mortgagsl morefulJyt"mentioned in Application A Schedule to OA z ,.;'" 1 , ;T ,* i\ \aq r.@r

¶16

(oA. No. 318/202s)

¶17

and create valid mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds in favor of the applicant bank. The Defendant availed Canara Bank Kisan Credit Card with limit of Rs.50,0001 with interest @ 9Yo p.a and executed Agreement of Hypothecation on 26.09.2010. After availing the loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶18

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 10.09.2025.

¶19

Sri, Himansu Sekhar Singh, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 lo A.27.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶22

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.2;r:@gtthe above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has made in the oA asainst the Defendant and "'#tffiSf'Q-\g 4s. '.!u ''^il f,}" \ ,"q \ t",} o\1 . 3 . '. ,^{1z Nrru} zW^*ll T,li . .,") ..r iJ a '<j, i! t\ )Y -:\a , "- r._.r.-relpi6l;/ _:r::#/

¶23

(oA. No. 318/202s)

¶24

hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶25

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶26

The Defendant is joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Appllcant Bank a total sum of Rs.33,87,392.55t- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two and Paise Fifty Five Only) i.e a sum of -

¶27

(i) Rs.33,32,565.50 (Rupees Thifi Three Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and paise Fifty Only) as on 31.03.2025 with future interest @ 14.20% p.a tiil the date of realization;

¶28

(i) Rs.54,827.05 (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Five Only) as on 31.03.2025 with future interest @ 9o/o p.a till the date of realization;

¶29

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Schedule Mortgage Property as mentioned in Application A Schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

¶31

¶32

Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person towards realization of the debt due. entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶33

¶34

(oA. No. 318/202s)

¶35

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

¶36

'13.

¶37

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(oiclated to the p A , transcribed bv her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12'h day of Nov, 2025)

¶40

sd/(c. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

7e€
{ffi
E5
dg <br>iJ 12 Nll,. 2W
. i
ntfu**#
'i,B-t "

¶42

';ff:ry/-
' o,na{tdl-
rnl-t, nyoinAgan.

Canara Bank v. Mr. N. Goverdhan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. N. Goverdhan Reddy

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

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao versus Axis Bank

Bank of India versus Mr. Bhaskar Voruganti

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Komatireddy Bhoji Reddy

Ismath Saniya versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Shaik Dilshad Begum