Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. Vedantham M. Vishnu Charan

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/430/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of dues. The respondents appeared ex-parte. The court accepted the Applicant's evidence and declared the respondents jointly and severally liable, granting recovery of principal, interest, and costs with security over specified property.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 77,02,604.86 with interest at 10.80% p.a. covering OA schedule property and other assets. Cost memo to be filed within 2 weeks. Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Vedantham M. Vishnu Charan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TFi DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B,Com., L.LB.^(Hons.), M.A. PRESID]NG OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 430 OF 2025

¶5

Canara Bank., S R Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. .....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Vedantham M. Vishnu Charan S/o. Narahan Swamy Vedantham Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Business R/o. Flat No.Gt, H. No.1-81/ 15/G 1 SGS Residency, Plot No.306, 307 Veerareddy Nagar, Street No.5 Boduppal, Medchal Ma lkajgiri Dist-500039.

¶8

Mr. Devulapalli Venkata Kiran Kumar S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 53 Years Occ: Employee, R/o. Flat No.301, Brinda Heights, Swaroopnagar, Uppa I Medchal Malkajgiri District - 500039.

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B. N. Swamy

Defenda nts

:Ex-parte

::^qLLE& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.77,02,604.86ps as on 15.04.2025 from^the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @13.15olo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default far sale of OA schedule^property. 11v",' ,u

"n'.u'

oA.NO.430/2025

Summons served on D1, whereas summons served on D2 on

¶20

through paper publication. They were set ex-parte 13.08.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined B. Praveen Raj, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.08.

¶22

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported no oral arguments. Perused the written arguments and material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.08 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

1n the result, the present Original Application No.430/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.77,02,604.86ps with !g[ure interest fM^*''.,:

¶28

oA.NO.430/2025

¶29

@10.800/o^p.a. simple^{from the date of} application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured bY way^of hypothecation of vehicle described in^the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against} the same to realise its debt;

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^propertiesof defendants for realization^{of its dues;}

¶32

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs'}

¶33

B. The Applicant Bank^is directed^{to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt^{of this Order.}

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy^{of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed^{and pronouncedbymein the open court on} this the 19th Day^{of November, 2025)'}

¶36

/M'*q/ (RAIqESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Mr. Vedantham M. Vishnu Charan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. Vedantham M. Vishnu Charan

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sree Vmk Hotels

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Renuka Steel and Hardware

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mythri Techno Solutions Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Gangaram Krishna Reddy

Canara Bank versus M/s. Faheem Plastics.

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy