Allowed

Canara Bank v. K. Subramanyam

DRT6 Feb 2026OA/193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal order, the court ex-parte allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs.37.59 lakh plus future interest and costs from the joint and several liabilities of the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs.37,59,992.79 with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgaged property; bank entitled to proceed against persons and properties for realization; costs awarded.

Canara Bank versus K. Subramanyam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 193 OF 2025

¶5

Canara Bank., Tirupati Main - II Branch, D.No.5-5-303 Siddant Towers, S D Layout, Tirupati Andh ra Pradesh - 517507. Rep. by its Principal OFficer.

¶6

.,,..Appllcant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

K. Subramanyam, S/o. Late

¶9

K. Chengaiah, Age lvlajor, Gender l4ale

¶10

D. No.10-437, Kranthi Nagar, Jeevekona Tiru pati - 517501.

¶11

K. Suguna, W/o. K. Subramanyam Age Major, Gender Female D.No.10-437, Kranthi Naga r, Jeevekona Tirupati - 517501.

¶12

M. Shobha Rani, W/o. T. Prakash Age l4ajor, Gender Female D.No.20-3-13lA, Siva Jyothl Naga r Tirupati, A.P - 517501.

¶13

...Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Alluri Krishnam Raju

¶15

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶16

:: CLB-D-LL::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA} for^{the recoverya total} sum of Rs.37,59,992.79ps as on^{30.04 2024 fromthe} defendants^jointly and severally \r!ti future^interest @10.95olo /N,*'

¶18

oA.NO.193/2025

¶19

¶20

p.a. with monthly rests from 01.05.2024 till the date of realization along with costs and ln default for sale of OA schedule property.

¶21

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 16.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined S. Madhava Mudhy, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶23

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

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule property?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present No.193/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶28

oA.NO.193/202s

¶29

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.37,59,992.79ps with future interest @10.25o/o^p.a. slmple^{from the date of} applicatlon till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of^mortgage of property descrlbed in the^schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank^is entitled to proceed against the same^to realise its debu

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, sitned and^pronounced by^{me in the open court on} this the 06th Day of February,2026).

¶36

/M,u* l-V^@''-

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. K. Subramanyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. K. Subramanyam

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. Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Menakshi Con.

Chittajallu Sudha versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Rsl Groups

Icici Bank Limited versus Mohammed Shanawaz

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Varalakshmamma Powerlooms.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Proavin Health Care.