Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Rama Powerlooms Industry

DRT5 May 2026OA/153/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application directed at a proprietorship firm for recovery of substantial loan dues under secured term, working capital, and GECL accounts along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of total sum of Rs.2,36,49,871.72 plus future interest; entitlement to proceed against movable and immovable properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Rama Powerlooms Industry — Arbitration | DRT (2026)

¶1

i $

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE O4th DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

OA. No.153 OF 2026

¶6

Between :

¶7

M/s. Canara Bank, Warangal Hanamkonda - ll Branch,

¶8

H.No. 2-5-39, Water Tank Road, Near Naveena Children Hospital, Nakkalg utta, Hanamkonda, Warangal District - 506 001, Telangana State

¶9

Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶10

Applicant

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

M/s. Sri Rama Powerlooms lndustry, Rep. by its Proprietor Mrs. A. Ramanarsamma,

¶13

Plot No. 241 , Survey No. 1791/'l , Textile Park,Madikonda Village, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana - sOG 142

¶14

Defendant

¶15

Counsel for the parties :

¶16

For The Applicant Manav GecilThomas

¶17

For the Defendant Exparte 20.04.2026 /^oiciiffin', 21.04.2026 / B, -Uoloadlr'wel!t, * 06.05.2026 0{ viYrn?( ; W,.sy

¶18

(OA. No. 1s3/2026)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,36,49,871.72 Ps. (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy One and Paise Seventy Two Only) i.e a sum of -

¶21

(i) Rs.1,74,26,538.65 Ps. under Term Loan account with future interest @16.4o/o p.a with monthly rests from 28.10.2025 till the date of realization;

¶22

(ii) Rs.20,04,102.86 Ps. under Working Capital Loan account with interest @10.35% p.a with monthly rests from 28J0.2025 fll the date of realization;

¶23

(iii) Rs.42,19,230.21 Ps. GECL account with interest @9.2O o/o p.a with monthly rests from 28.10.2025 till the date of rea lization;

¶24

and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of Property A to OA.

¶25

erments in the application, the Applicant Bank states is a Proprietorship Firm represented by its Ramanarsamma availed Term Loan facility of

¶26

(OA. No. 153/202 6)

¶27

Rs.98,31 ,000/- with interest @11.4Yo p.a with monthly rests and working capital facility of Rs.15.00 Lakhs together with interest @10.4o/o^{p.a with monthly rests and executed Common} Hypothecation Agreement dated 25.03.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants availed GECL facility of Rs.34.00 Lakhs with interest @9.25%o p.a with monthly rests and executed Supplemental Common Hypothecation Agreement dated 03.10.2022 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.10.2023 and issued Demand notice dated 04.11.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 lo the defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶28

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 20.04.2026.

¶29

Mr. B. Madhav Reddy, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A.'13.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant tji'..].^i,,barik itled for the claim made in the OA against the ,,..," r$ yed for? * 0[ HAy?o?f^* \Jrn$ W;*nqry

¶32

(oA. No. 1s3/2026)

¶33

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 , official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.13. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶34

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

¶35

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,36,49,87'1.72 Ps. (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy One and Paise Seventy Two Only) i.e a sum of -

¶36

(i) Rs.1,74,26,538.65 Ps. under Term Loan account with future interest @16.4Yo p.a from 28.10.2025 till the date of realization;

¶37

(ii) Rs.20,04,102.86 Ps. under Working Capital Loan account with interest @10.35Yo p.a from 28.10.2025 till the date of realization;

¶38

(iii) Rs.42,19,230.21 Ps. GECL account with interest @9.20 % p.a from 28.10.2025 till the date of realization;

¶39

Bank is entitled to proceed against the 6 Movables as mentioned in the Schedule of to the OA towards realization of the debt due. j \r, tg IF nq ,rf'ffiry*h< ^j

¶40

W**W

¶41

(oA. No. 1s312026)

¶42

10 The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the properties of Defendant firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the O4rh day of May, 2026)

¶48

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) f:vr:%d PRESIDING OFFICER " oii,';,fiY;"

¶49

ffi%<br>0 4 [[Y r[i6 i:
d,x s
\S,,"d.i'i

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Rama Powerlooms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sri Rama Powerlooms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kyramkonda Kanaka Raju versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Banothu Jayasinga Raju versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Mr Ravulapally Ravichandra versus Union Bank of India

M/S.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development versus M/S. Navajeevan Organisation

Canara Bank versus Bharath Power Looms Industry

Bank of India versus Mrs. Uddamarri Sabitha (Female)