Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. O S Steel Traders.

DRT5 Aug 2026OA/149/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal case, the court allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. Despite the respondents appearing ex-parte, the tribunal held them jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount secured by hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs.23,55,179.16 with interest; sale of hypothecated assets permitted; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/s. O S Steel Traders. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OsTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 149 OF 2026

¶4

Canara Bank.,

¶5

Rajendranagar Branch, H. No.8- 13-95/77 ROY Chambers, Opp. National Police Academy, Rajendranagar, Ra nga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500052. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. O S Steel Traders., Rep by its Proprietor, Mr. Aslam Mohammed D.No.l9-2-274/5/ 1, Opp: Mir Alam Tank zoo Park Road, Hyderabad-500064 Telangana State.

¶9

Mr. Aslam lvlohammed S/o. lvlohammed Khaliq, Aged about 38 Years, Proprietor of M/s. O S Steels Traders, D.No. 19-2-274/5/ l, Opp: Mir Alam Tank, zoo Park Road, Hyderabad ... Defendants 500064, Telangana State.

¶10

: lYr. R. Mani Kumar Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: O-B-D-LB::

The Applicant Bank flled the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.23,55,179.16ps towards Cash Credit A/c.^No. 1178255000015 from the defendants^jointly and severally^with future interest @10.25%^p.a. with monthly^{rests plus 27o p.a.} ,'r\rrgrq6"\

iL/ .os"

oA.NO.149/2026

from the date of application till the date of realization alonq with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶19

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 03.08.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined Ukey Amit Kumar, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 18 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.18.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶22

The point that arises for conslderation is:-

¶23

Whether the ApFtlicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶24

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.18 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.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.149/2026 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of 0w**'

¶27

oA.NO.149/2026

¶28

Rs.23,55,179.16ps towards Cash Credit A/c. No. 1178255000015 with future interest @10.10olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, si8ned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05th Day of August,2026).

¶35

ffi,r>-"t\ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s. O S Steel Traders.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. O S Steel Traders.

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

M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited. versus Mr. Mohammed Imamuddin Siddiqui

Sirigiri Renuka versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Kuna Murali Goud and Another versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Ssabaaba Agrri Inplant

Bank of Baroda versus Bewell Herbal Health Care Manufacturers.

Madduri Bharatamma versus Hdb Financial Services Limited