Allowed

B Kalavathi and Others v. Canara Bank

DRT19 Sept 2025SA/41/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This debt recovery tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues from a corporate borrower and its proprietor. The court found the defendants liable for the outstanding loan amount with interest and dismissed their defense of limitation and moratorium period interest charges.

What did the court decide?

Granted joint and several liability to pay Rs.84,50,588/- with interest; allowed sale of hypothecated movables and action against personal properties; awarded costs.

B Kalavathi and Others versus Canara Bank — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19rH DAy OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.41 of 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, (SARB-2) 1-8-563/1, lst floor, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC X roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1, M/s. Lakshmi Takshay Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri Nanavath Kranthi Kumar, Major, male, Trans Eliter Arcade, Ground floor, besides ICICI bank, Adibhatla branch, Adibhatla,

¶9

, K.V. Rangareddy dist - 501 510.

¶10

Sri N. Nanavath Kranthi Kumar S/o Sri N. Lakki Das, major, Male, R/o Plot no.6 & 7, 3;^-W Gayatrhri nagar, Karma ngf* ei;) da nts

¶11

Hyderabad - 500 097. r 19SEP ,rrzs

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:the Parties:Parties: For the Applicant anarayana Defendants Sri A. Parshuram

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:the Parties:Parties:

¶14

(OA.No.41l202s)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.84,5o,5gg/- (Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight onty ) i.e.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.11,37,536/- for CC loan account with further interest @ 10.55o/o^p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.46,2t,738/- with further interest @ 9.650lo p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of rea.lization ;

¶19

c) Asum of(Rs.1,0g,74g/- + Rs.10,25,24gl- + Rs.15,56,31g/-) with future interest @ 9.80% p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶20

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.2 was the proprietor of defendant no.1 enterprises availed cash Rs.10.00 lakhs on 31.05.2019 and defendant no.2 a ntor for due repayment of outstanding liabi agreement of loan cum hypothecation io souou6& dated 31.05.219. The defendants also .00 lakhs and GECL-1.0 of Rs.9.00 lakhs on L-3.0 of Rs.14.80 lakhs on

¶22

(oA.No.a1l202s)

¶23

30.11'2021.It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants has availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 24.05.2024: Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued demand notice dated 03.06.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.84,50,588/- (Rupees Eaghty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only ) with further interest @ 10,55% p.a, @ 9.650/o p.a and @9,80o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

The Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is admitted that the defendants availed the credit facilities and executed necessary documents but defaulted some installments due to temporary liquidity crunch. It is further submitted that substantial amounts were repaid towards principal and interest and contended that the applicant bank charged the interest in moratorium period also, It is contended that the loan account was classified as N ing the guidelines of RBL Hence prayed for nt no.2 examined himself as DW.1 i,P d npt file anv docu 1,9 SEPTffi.' : rl r':1 ,..r-..9. r..1. 4. peru*ed -->ef$l ed on record. rER{

¶25

(OA.No.41l202s)

¶26

5. Heard the arguments.

¶27

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶28

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶29

ii) To what relief ?

¶30

Point No.i):

¶31

Sri B. Ramakrishna Prasad, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Appllcant clearly deposed about the ltabiltty of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.15 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶32

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants, Even though defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1, did not file any documents, hence his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant no.2 having taken the plea that they made some part payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect, Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by nt bank makes clear that all the releva nt documen e defendants in the normal course of tran vaguely contended that pa rticu lars $he^{6A9#6P"4026r..",fi11But as per the statement} of accounts, the the oA craim' considerins ,".::]9"ry$P,?t Smffiffo

¶33

(oA.No.41l202s)

¶34

all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entiUed to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶35

Point No.ii)

¶36

In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as u nd er:

¶37

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.84r5O,S88/- (Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only ) i.e.,

¶38

a) A sum of Rs.11,37,536/- for CC loan account with further interest

¶39

@ 10.55o/o^p,a from date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶40

b) A sum of Rs.46,21,738/- with further interest @ 9.650/o p.a from date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶41

c) A sum of (Rs.1,09,748/- + Rs.10,25,24gl- + Rs.1S,56,3Lg/_) with future interest @ 9.800/o p.a from date of On titt the date of realization;

¶42

The ApplicggE@@qqltitted to proceed against the hypothecated OA towards realisation of

¶43

ffiffro"Bischedue'[o t; 1 s sEP ilrs ,.r W---#?'

¶44

(oA.No.41l202s)

¶45

11.The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 Enterprises towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

L2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶47

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

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

15, Communicate a copy of the order to the^{parties concerned.}

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, slgned and^pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of Sept'2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

6tq\k&'b
i
1s sEpm ;
W-s-Y

¶55

'::,mr*,

B Kalavathi and Others v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Kalavathi and Others v. Canara Bank

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

Baliram Tungar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Amit Bajaj and another versus Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ar Enterprise

State Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Takshay Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kathoth Kunya

State Bank of India versus Mr. Peddi Pavani