Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry

DRT5 Aug 2025OA/427/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the originating application filed by Canara Bank against a powerloom industry and its proprietor. The court found the bank's claim established and directed recovery of the outstanding loan sum with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,03,21,092.94 (+interest 13.70% p.a.) and face sale of properties; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 5rH DAy oF AUGUsr, 2o2s

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.427 ot 2024

¶5

Between :

¶6

Canara Bank, Hanamkondir Branch, H.No.2-5-39, water tank road, Near Naveen Children Hospital, Nakkalgutta, Hanamkonda, Telangana-506001. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry, Represented by its managing partner, P, Narayana Chaitanya, R/o Plot no.2l2, Sy. No.179112, Madikonda, Kazipet, Warangal, TS -506 142.

¶10

Mr. Pebbisetty Narayana Chaitanya,
s/o P. Srinivasa Rangam,
aged about 32 years, occ: business,
male, R/o # L2-74-65, Lalapet,
Vinoba nagar, Secunderabad,
TS - 500 017. Defendants
$.
Counsel for the Parties:r
.,jF
For the Applicant j .& : _ Tarangini Pisipati
0 5 AU0 &5
For the Defendants , rte
:.,t
OR

¶11

(OA.No.427 /202a1

¶12

Crore Thirty Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine and paise Eighty four only) with interest @ 13.70% p.a with monthly rests from 15.11.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶13

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed loan of Rs.113.31 lakhs. Out of which a sum of Rs.98.31 lakhs as term loan and Rs.15.OO lakhs as cash credit vide sanction letter dated 27.03.20L9. The loan facilities are secured by hypothecation of plant and machinery as primary security and mortgage of schedule mentioned property. After availing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.10.2023 and recall notice was issued on L4.LL.2024. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶14

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 18.06.2025.

¶15

Sri Rajesh. of the Applicant Bank examined relevant documents, which are ,49tB'^nq</sup> e,s^{Ex.A.1 to} A.10. 5^{05[[g2yl5 *}

¶16

(oA.No.427 /2024)

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Defendants 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.A1 to A.10. 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 Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶21

B. In the result, the present oA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.l,g2t 1o,929.94ps (Rupees one crore Thirty Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine and paise Eighty four only) with interest @ t3.7oo/o p.a from 15.11.2024til1 the date of realization;

¶22

The Applicant bank is entiiled to proceed against the hypothecated movables rty as mentioned in the schedule to ,d\

OA tow due.

(oA.No.a27l2oz4l

The Applicant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶30

14, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶31

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of Aug, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

6*&<br>

TRUE COPY ,*;'-.W]rry

Canara Bank v. M/S. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry

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

State Bank of India versus Miss Kurrapati Swarna Latha

Mrs Harriet Francis Dass versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

C Rama Devi versus Apsfc

Uco Bank versus Smt. Pulimamidi Kavitha

State Bank of India versus Mr. Brahmosthava Industries

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Mln Industries Private Limited