Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Ramesh Engineering Enterprises

DRT19 Jun 2026OA/128/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs. 31,61,968/- with future interest and costs from the Defendant Engineering Enterprise, which remained in absentia.

What did the court decide?

Ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 31,61,968/- with future interest, secured by hypothecation of assets, and directed recovery certificate issuance.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Ramesh Engineering Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 128^{OF 2026}

¶4

CANARA BANK Having its Head Office at 113, l.C. Road, P.B. No.6648 Ba ng lore-560002 and its Branch at Prashanti Nagar, SME Branch, Hyderabad- 500072, Telangana State Rep by its lulanager

¶5

.......Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

l4/s. Ramesh Engineering Enterprises H.No.7-6-42l2/NR, ShoP 1, Road no.3, Old Airport Road, Feroz Guda, Hyderabad-50001 1 Rep. by its proprietor Ramesh Babu Yadav Aged about^{40 years} Flat no.304, Ranganayaka Tower,^{BK Guda,} S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad-500038

¶8

...... Defendant

¶9

: Sri. D. L. Kiran Prakash Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the^Defendant : ex-oarre 6fu'n'5iv*

¶10

oA.NO.128/2026

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 31,6t,96A/- from the sole defendant with future interest @ 13.600lo p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs, and in default, sale of OA hypothecated assets.

¶13

Summon served on Sole Defendant through paper publication

¶14

and was set exparte on 16.06.2026 as called absent and no

¶15

representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. M. Vijay Sagar, Branch

¶17

Manager, as AW-1 and marked 18 documents through them as

¶18

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18.

¶19

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. Perused the material

¶20

placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶22

Whether the Appticant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypoth;ca@d assets ?

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.1g marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future illterest and "ry)'56

¶24

oA.NO.128l2025

¶25

In the result, th'e^present Original^{Application No.128/2026is} allowed as under:^-

¶26

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to^pay to^the Applicant Bank a Rs. 31,61,968/- with^future interest @ 9.30o/o^p.a. simple from the^date of application till the date of^realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured bY way^of hypothecation of assets as^{describedin the} Exhibit A.6 of the schedule annexed to^the OA and the applicant bank is^{entitled to} proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order^{to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by me iLtheopen court on} this the lerh Day of June, 2025). (OW.rtrO

¶33

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s. Ramesh Engineering Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Ramesh Engineering Enterprises

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 Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Voodi Sravani

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., versus M/s. Fast Dot

Bank of Baroda versus Raj Trading

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Malgi Reddy Govardhan Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Vijeka Logistics Pvt. Ltd.