Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/1092/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a recovery application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for a sum with interest after the defendants appeared ex-parte. The debtor was held liable to pay the amount secured by mortgage of property.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 51,70,243/- with interest; recovery certificate issued.

What the court decided

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,²⁰²⁶

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.COM. L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{NO: 1092 OF 2025}

¶4

Cana ra Bank, Kundanbagh^Branch, 7-l-22/AA & B Kundanbagh, Near Begumpet Flyover,^{Hyderabad-500016} Rep. by its Principal Offlcer^{and BranchHead}

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla, W/o. G. Shivakumar,^{Aged 49} Years, Female, Occ:^EmPloYe, F.No.401, Sai^{Mitra Towers,} Opp. to D Mart,^Kushaiguda, Hyderabad - 500062

¶8

Also at

¶9

Project Manager, M/s. MSR Mega^{Bio Power Ltd.} Flat NO.510A,^{5th Floor,} lvlodal House^Punjagutta, Hyderabad -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁸²

¶10

M/s. Beccun^{InfrastructureLimited,} Rep. by its director^{Mr. PrasanthKumar Puram,} H.No.6-3-456/8/102,^RoomNo.2, Model House^Punjagutta, nvJe.aOaa,^{reta,ig5na - 5OoO82}

¶11

"Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms' N'^Indira

¶13

Counsel^{for the} Defendants^{: Ex-parte} N''*o

oa.No.r0921202s

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 57,70,243/_ with future interest Eg.45o7o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of OA mortgage property.

¶18

Summon sent to defendants returned with endorsement Refused, hence deemed to be served and were set exparte on 24.02.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Vankudoth Raju, Manager, as

¶20

AW-1 and marked 8 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8.

¶21

Heard ex-parte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶23

,Vhether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the ctaim made in the oe agaiiJt the Defendant and OA ,o;;;9; property z

¶24

As stated supra, the Defenr remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupred *,,,ountt the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.8 marked o1 crinches Hence, I the hold craim or that the the Defendan^r;;,.::.ilit";: :::;:'":il:ffl: liable to pay the oA claim to the Applicant Bank with futu( I interest "na^rortT/$t:s

¶25

oA.NO.1092/202s

¶26

In the result,^{the present Original ApplicationNo'1092/2025is} allowed as^underl-

¶27

i) The Defendants^{are liable to pay to the} Applicant Bank^{a sum Rs' 51,70,243/- wllh} future interest @8.45olo^{p'a' simplefrom the} date of application^{till the date of realization;}

¶28

ii) the OA claim^{is secured by way of mortgage} of property as^{described in the schedule} annexed to the^{OA and the applicantbank is} entitled to^{proceedagainstthe same to} realise its debt;

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

o Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶33

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'}

¶34

(Dictated to the steno,^{corrected,signed andpronouncedbymein the open court on} this the 25th^{DaYof February,2025)'}

¶35

/0w# t (Rhil(ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

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

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles

State Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Bharath Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

M/S. State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Subrahmanya Jewellers (Borrower)

M/S. State Bank of India versus Mrs. Chenepalli Lakshmi Sujana, (Borrower)