Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Gomathi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

DRT29 Jun 2026OA/189/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 1.02 crore along with interest, holding the bank established its claim via documentary evidence. Relief included payment liability, action against mortgaged properties, and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,02,92,792 with interest; proceedings against hypothecated/mortgaged properties allowed; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Gomathi Electronics Pvt… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMAD| cOPtCHAND,^pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 189 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

Canara Bank, Shah Ali Banda Branch, Hyderabad.

¶6

Represented by its Senior Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Gomathi Electronics Private Limited, Represented by its Director, H.No. 20-6-470 & 471, Opp. Clock Tower, Shah Ali Banda,

¶10

Hyderabad - 500 065.

¶11

Pavankumar Bansal, S/o, Sri Om Prakash Bansal, Aged Major; Occ Business, H.No. 20-6-470 & 471, Opp. Clock Tower, Shah Ali Banda,

¶12

Hyderabad - 500 065.

¶13

Sunitha Bansal, Wo, Sri

¶14

H.No.23
Shah Ali ii
HyderabH, Defendants
,\

¶15

(OA. No. 189/2025)

¶16

Counsel for the parties :

¶17

For The Applicant Dishit Bhattacharjee For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on 29.06.2026 Upload in website on 30.06.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.l,02,82,782.00 Ps. (Rupees One Crores Two Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Two Only) with future rate of interest @12.35Yo^{p.a compoundedmonthly from 15.12.2025 till 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.

¶20

As per the averrnents in the application, the Applicant Bank Defendant No.1 is a company represented by its ndants No. 2 and 3 availed secured overdraft $\ n facil Rs.100.00 Lakhs with interest @10.3Oo/o p.a n ? q qgmponcnoet ly and executed necessary documents such , '-'$. ut {) -tr /

¶21

(oA. No. 189/2026)

¶22

as composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 30.1 1.201g in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood as a personal Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 30.1 1.2018 in favor of the Appricant Bank. The Defendants created equitabre mortgaged morefuily mentioned in Schedure of Property B to oA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of rifle Deeds dated 22.11.201g and deposited Gift setflement deed dated 18.08.2010 in favor of the Applicant bank. The Defendants renewed the above mentioned loan facility from time to time and executed necessary loan documents 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 Securitization Notice dated 30.06.2025 to the defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 2g.06.2026.

¶24

Sri. Dhanavath Kotesh, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as_Ex.A.1 to A.24.

¶25

Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

"f-"W
)k 7 q JUN lrt?fi
Q.,h,-"".i9
($#I1'ryi

¶27

(OA. No. 189/202G)

¶28

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶29

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 4.24. 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 Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶30

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

¶31

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,02,g2,792.00 ps. (Rupees One Crores Two Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Two Only) with future rate of interest @12.35% p.a from 15.12.2025 tiil the date of realization.

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged properties as mentioned Schedule of the Property A and B to the OA towards dg v4\ of the debt due. ,*

2^g .lljtrt rnln *

(oA. No. tB9/2026)

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the

¶37

person and properties of Defendants No. 2 and 3 and

¶38

properties of Defendant No. 1 company towards realization of the

¶39

debt due.

¶40

That Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶41

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

¶42

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P'A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of Jun, 2026)

¶45

sd/(G. coPlcHAND) PRESIDING OFFTGER

¶46

n:r:t
As*t {Qegt5(ror- '
r,Fr-1, ii"!.tsEFAgAO'

Canara Bank v. M/S. Gomathi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Gomathi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

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

Laxmi Venkataramana Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mrs Gada Uma Lavanya versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Dsr Electricals

Rohit Enterprises and Others versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

V Raghavendra versus Union Bank of India