Allowed

Canara Bank v. Agapu Ramaswamy

DRT13 Apr 2026OA/163/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs. 29,31,901.05. The bank established its claim via evidence despite the respondents appearing ex-parte, ordering joint and several liability and recovery of marked mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.29,31,901.05 with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and obtain Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Agapu Ramaswamy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SR! cUMMAD| cOptCHAND, pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 163 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Canara Bank, Mahabubnagar Branch, D.No. 1-5-10714/2, New Town Chowrasta Mahabubnagar - 509 001 Telangana State Represented by its Senior Manager and GPA Holder

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Agapu Ramaswamy, S/o. Sri agapu Balakondaiah Age Major, Occ. Business,

¶9

H. No. 3-46, Pothireddypaily, Mehabubnagar- 509 215,

¶10

Telangana State.

¶11

Agapu Chennamma,

¶12

Wo. Sri Agapu Ramaswamy,

¶13

Age Major, Occ. Business,

¶14

H.No. 3-45, Pothireddypally, Defendants ffffi:::lti;"*u'r,6rg\ iiq J 13 APn N26 * W'"'-TY

¶15

(oA. No. 163/2026)

¶16

Counsel for the parties :

¶17

For The Applicant T. Nagender For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 08.04.2026 Pronounced on 13.04.2026 Upload in website on 15.04.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,31,g0,t .05 ps. (Rupees

¶20

Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred One and Paise Five Only) with further interest @13.10o/o p.a with compounded harf yearry rests from 01.10.2025 tiil the date of realization and in default for sale of Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property A and B to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendants availed Agricultural Term Loan facility of Rs.28,00,000/- repayable in half yearly installments of Rs.2,1 interest and executed Memorandum of ral Loans and Term Loan Agreement 18.01 4in of the Applicant Bank. The defendant

¶22

(oA. No. 163/2026)

¶23

No. 2 stood as a Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01 .2024 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no. 1 created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of Property to the OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 09.01.2O24 and deposited Original Sale Deed 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 Demand notice dated 1g.10.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAES|Act, 2OO2 to the defendants. The Applicant Bank further initiated SARFAESI proceedings and issued notices to the Defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

¶25

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 09.04.2026.

¶26

Sri. Sanginani Sridhar Rao, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶27

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The for consideration is whether the Applicant lhe claim made in the OA against the tPH 2[2[ lir^* ,.@!#t

¶30

(oA. No. 163/2026)

¶31

¶32

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.'16. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiiled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.29,31,g01.05 ps. (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred One and paise Five Only) with further interest @13.10%^p.a from 01.10.2025 tiil the date of reatization.

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

The Appl is also entitled to proceed against the person and ants No. 1 and 2 towards realization of fJ I 3 ApR mz6^\l "3',-",q-"dl' ...'^{i ,} -,-'

¶38

(oA. No. 163/2025)

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, co'ected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day ot ApL2026)

¶44

rs
".,. ij t t drpn zoze *

¶45

sd/(c. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

nTRUFjCOPY,
L[.e4ffi*
Aalfieg*(nr

¶47

DRT.', HYDSENIAD.

Canara Bank v. Agapu Ramaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Agapu Ramaswamy

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

Mr.Venugopal Reddy Gaddam and another versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Srinivas Reddy Daama

State Bank of India versus Mr. Tera Karunakar Reddy

Canara Bank versus Sri. Ramavath Praharsh Mark

Ms Vr Associates versus Bank of Maharashtra

Madhamshetty Hari Babu versus Union Bank of India