Allowed

Canara Bank v. Chandra Powerloom Industry

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/454/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's application against defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,33,50,293.00 principal, interest, costs, and permission to proceed against mortgaged properties and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,33,50,293.00 plus future interest; Applicant Bank permitted to proceed against mortgaged properties and other assets; Issue Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Chandra Powerloom Industry — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMAD! cOptGHAND, PREStDING OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 454 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

Canara Bank, Hanmakonda -ll Branch, Telangana State - 506 001, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Chandra Powerlooms lndustry, Rep. by its Prop. Amudala Nirmala,

¶9

Wo. Chandramouli,

¶10

Aged about 54 years,Occ : Business. Plot No. 21, Sy No. 1791t1, Textile Park, Madikonda, Kazipet Mandal,

¶11

Warangal (Urban),

¶12

Telangana State - 506 142.

¶13

Amudala Nirmala, Wo. Chandramouli, Aged about 54 years,Occ : Business. Plot No. 21, Sy No. 1791t1, Textile Park, Madikonda, Warangal (Urban), Telangana State - 506 142. Defendants 1g llEC Wi *

¶14

(OA. No. as4l202s)

¶15

Counsel for the parties :

¶16

For The Applicant S. Sainathan For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 16.12.2025 Pronounced on 18.12.2025 Upload in website on 18.12.2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,33,S0,2g3.00 ps. (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Three Onty) with future interest @ 13.40% p.a with monthly rests from 23.06.2025 till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedule of property to OA.

¶19

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 Term Loan of Rs.99,31,000/_ repayable in Ml's of Rs.1,61,653.00 Ps. with interest @11.4Yo and Over Draft Facility Rs.15.00 Lakhs monthly rests and executed 18oEC?u52 it****#

¶20

(oA. No. 4s4l2o2s)

¶21

Composite Hypothecation Deed dated 28.03.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in schedule of Property To oA and executed Agreement to Mortgage dated 28.03.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No.1 availed GECL Loan of Rs.32.00 Lakhs repayable in 5 years with interest @9.2so/o p.a with monthly rests and executed common Hypothecation Agreement dated 28.12.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in schedule of property to oA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of ritle Deeds dated 29.11.2022 and deposited sale Deed in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued Demand notice on 06.11.2023 under section 13(2) ot the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶22

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 16. 12.202s. 4. Sri. B. Madhav Reddy, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, wh Ex.A.1 to A.23.

¶23

,'r 1^g frrfr ,T,!X

¶24

(oA. No. 4s4l2025)

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.23. ln 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 entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,33,50,2g3.00 ps. (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Two Hundredand Eighty Three Only) with future interest @ 13.40o/o p.a from 23.06.2025 tiil the date of realization

¶32

The Applican, t"1l*,,11 entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Properties mentisneddn the Schedule of Property to the OA "ofh.,\0"0, ros redi&tion ou" 1g rlEcl45 * \ k'ry4

¶33

(OA. No. 4s4l202s)

¶34

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No. 2 and properties of defendant No.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶36

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

¶37

lssue Recovery Certiflcate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18h day of Dec, 2025)

¶40

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

8..'
tA
*
t.t

¶42

TRUE COPY
a.{r 2-)

Canara Bank v. Chandra Powerloom Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Chandra 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 M/S. Anu Enterprises

Trinetra Jewellers versus Canara Bank

Pokkili Murali Kalyan versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sai Chaitanya Constructions

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shree Krishna Roadways

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Industries