Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Harikanth Etikala

DRT13 Apr 2026OA/202/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records the decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, on an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of dues. Having heard the applicant and the defendant being ex-parte, the tribunal found the evidence sufficient, held the defendant liable, allowed the application, and ordered recovery of dues, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs. 20,92,335/- with interest; bank entitled to proceed against defendant's property for realization and costs.

Canara Bank versus Sri Harikanth Etikala — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 202 OF 2026

¶4

Canara Bank., SME Branch at Plot No.74, Mythri Towers, Prashanthi Nagar, Ku katpally lvledchal Malkaigiri District - 500072. Rep. by its Senior Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sri^{Harikanth Etikala,} S/o. Etikala Kondaiah, Aged about 41 Years Occ: Business, Prop of Etikala Engineering Solutions, Office No.39-54/7 & 8, Plot No.5 Road No.5, IDA Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District - 500037.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

H.No.24-5, Ranga Reddy Nagar Opp. Maharshi Oil Mills, IDPL Post Medchal lvlalkajgiri District - 37.

¶10

Also at:-

¶11

R/o. H. No.1-49l 15/8, Street No.12 Suryanagar Colony, Uppal - 500038 Medchal Ma lkajgiri District.

¶12

.... .. Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. V. Janardhan

Defendants

: Ex-pade

;: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2O,92,335/- from the defendant with future interest @12,55yo

¶18

¶19

OA.No.20212026

¶20

p.a. with monthly compounding from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶21

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 10.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined M Vijay Sagar, Legal Manager as AW1 and marked 25 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.25.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the written arguments and material placed on record.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Atfldavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.25 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.20212026 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Appticant Bank a sum of Rs.20,92,335/- with future interest @10.55o/o p.a. simple, from the date of apptlr{\ion ti the date of rearization; (/ff*.>U

¶29

oA.No.20212026

¶30

¶31

ii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against

¶32

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certifi cate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, sitned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13rh day of April, 2026). ZlAfrrr* -

¶37

/(/'#K,tu

¶38

(kAMESHwAR KoTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

! I

Canara Bank v. Sri Harikanth Etikala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Harikanth Etikala

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

Ms Sri Siva Sai Jyothi Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak versus State Bank of India

Varalakshmamma Powerlooms versus City Union Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M Chakrapani

Union Bank of India versus M/s Rr Industries

Canara Bank versus K. Satyaranayana

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Goli Venkateswar Rao