Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles

DRT21 Jul 2026OA/158/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this original application, Canara Bank sought recovery of approximately Rs. 2.04 crore along with future interest and costs from a textile firm and its proprietor for defaulted term, OD, and GECL loans secured by a hypothecation and equitable mortgage. The Tribunal allowed the application ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Debtors jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1.94 crore principal with future interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAYOF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMADt cOptCHAND, pRESIDtNG OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 158 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Canara Bank, Plot No. A 2/'1, Balasamudram Main Road, Hanamkonda, Telangana - 506001. Warangal Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles, Prop: Smt. Gadde Chandrakala, Rep. by Smt. Chityala Saritha aged about: 53 years, Occ: Business, H. No.1-111, Narsimhulagudem, Nellikuduru, Mahabubabad District - 506102

¶9

Also at -

¶10

M/s. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles, Prop: Smt. Gadde Chandrakala, Rep. by Smt Chityala Satitha aged about: 53 years, Occ: Business Factory Plot No.217, Sy. No. 179111.

¶11

(oA. No. 1s8/2026)

¶12

Madikonda textile park, Madikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Warangal, Telangana - 506142.

¶13

Smt. Gadde Chandrakala, Wo. Sri. Somaiah,

¶14

Proprietor of Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles, aged about: 53 years, Occ: Business, H. No.1-'l 11, Narsimhulagudem, Nellikuduru,

¶15

Mahbubabad District - 506102

¶16

Also at -

¶17

Smt. Gadde Chandrakala, Wo. Sri. Somaiah,

¶18

Proprietor of Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles, aged about: 53 years, Occ: Business, Factory Plot No.217,

¶19

Sy. No.1791/1,

¶20

Madikonda textile park, Madikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Warangal, Telangana - 506142.

¶21

Smt. Chityala Saritha,

¶22

Wo. Sri. Rajaram,

¶23

aged about: 40 years, Occ: Business, H. No.9-10/5/3, Plot No. 126, !,.ss Chennareddy Colony, rF Uppal Bus Depot, Peerzariguda, Ghatkesar, .i".^{? t, ufi zm} :

¶24

(oA. No. 1s8/2026)

¶25

Also at - Smt. Chityala Saritha, Wo. Sri. Rajaram, aged about: 40 years, Occ: Business, Factory Plot No.216, Sy. No.1791/1, Madikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Warangal, Telangana - 506142 Defendants

¶26

Counsel for the parties :

¶27

For The Applicant M/s. Chavan & Associates Law Firm For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 20.07.2026 Pronounced on 21.07.2026 Upload in website on 21.07.2026

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,94,62,530.33 ps. (Rupees One Crores Ninety Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thifi and Paise Thifi Three Only) i.e a sum of -

¶30

(i) Rs.1,53, nder Term Loan account with future interest p;a ly rests from 01.0'1.2026 till the date n;' '

¶31

(oA. No. 1s8/202G)

¶32

(ii) Rs.10,10,233.95 ps. under OD Loan account with future interest @8.75% p.a with monthly rests from 01.01.2026 tiil the date of realization;

¶33

(iii) Rs.5,28,541.97 ps. under the GECL - | account with future interest @8.60/0 p.a with monthly rests from 01.01.2026 titt the date of realization;

¶34

(iv) Rs.25,20,368.63 Ps. under the GECL - 1.0 Extension account with future interest @9.6% p.a with monthly rests from 01.01.2026 till the date of realization;

¶35

and in default for sale of Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶36

¶37

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant no. 2 avaired rerm Loan facirity of Rs.92,50,000/- repayabre in 72 equated monthry instailments with interest @10.40% p.a and working capitarfacirity of Rs.7.50 Lakhs together with interest @9.55% p.a and executed Common Hypothecation Agreement dated 29.04.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendants availed GECL -1 loan facility Lakhs with interest and executed Supplemental tion Agreement dated 20.06.2020 in favor Bank. The defendants availed GECL - 1.0 ' facility of Rs.20.00 Lakhs with interest and

¶38

(oA. No. 158/2026)

¶39

executed Supplemental Common Hypothecation Agreement daled 12.11.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 2 being the Proprietor of Defendant No. 1 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Tifle Deeds dated 22.11.2021 in favor oftheApplicant Bankand deposited tifle deeds in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA and issued Legal notice dated 04.11.2024 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶40

¶41

Sri. R. Shravan Kumar filed Vakalat on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 3 .WS of Defendants No. 1 to 3 not filed and hence Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on 20.07.2026.

¶42

Sri. Nagaraju Jakka, Chief Manager and Authorized Signatory of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4.36.

¶43

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶44

consideration is whether the Applicant claim made in the OA against the

¶45

(oA. No. 1s8/2026)

¶46

¶47

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.36. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶48

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

¶49

The Defendants no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,94,62,530.33 ps. (Rupees One Crores Ninety Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty and Paise Thirty Three Only) i.e a sum of-

¶50

(i) Rs.1,53,03,385.78 Ps. under Term Loan account with future interest @9.75% p.a from 01.01.2026 titt the date of realization;

¶51

(ii) Rs.10,10,233.95 Ps. under OD Loan account with future interest @8.75% p.a from 01.01.2026 till the date of reatization;

¶52

(iii) Ps. under the GECL - I account with future 01.01.2026 till the date of realization;

¶53

(OA. No. 1s8/2026)

¶54

(iv) Rs.25,20,368.63 Ps. under the GECL - 1.0 Extension account with future interest @8.60/0 p.a from 01.01.2026 till the date of realization;

¶55

¶56

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶57

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the properties of Defendant No. 1 firm and person and properties of Defendant no. 2 towards realization of the debt due.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶62

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, conected, signed and pronounced by me in the open murt on this the 21si day of Jul, 2026)

¶63

sd/(G. coPlcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Textiles

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

Kovuri Nagesh Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited

Ms Maha Bharati Foot Wear India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indusind Bank Ltd.

pratap jadpod versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Karur Vysya Bank versus Challa Raghupathi Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri Bokinala Takur Ratnakar

Canara Bank versus M/S.Sreelatha Textiles