Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Optrobox

DRT5 Jan 2026OA/9/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of dues from a borrower firm and proprietor. Following the defendants' default in filing written statement or adducing evidence, the Tribunal adjudicated the bank's documentary evidence unchallenged and awarded recovery of principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to pay a total sum of Rs.49,99,913/- with future interest, along with costs, and ordering the bank to issue a Recovery Certificate and proceed against hypothecated assets and

Canara Bank versus M/S. Optrobox — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF^]ANUARY,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDlNG OFFICER

¶4

ORIGiNAL APPLICATION^{NO. 9 OF 2025}

¶5

Between: Canara Bank Ameerpet-2^Branch Hyderabad Telangana State. nep. 5y its Chief Manager. Applicant'

¶6

And

¶7

M/s. Optrobox RePresented^{bY its ProPrietor} 11/C, Phase-⁵ IDA Cherla PallY Hyderabad^{- 500051}

¶8

G.V. Padmasri W/o Sri Rama^{Shankar Babu} Age: Major,^{Occ: Business} Plot No. 57. 1-9-485/13/5 Lalitha Nagar^{CommunityHa ll} '^Defendants' il.'.nugui^{uvo"tabad-sboo2o}

¶9

: Mr. Dishit^{Bhattacharjee.} Counsel^{for APPlicant} : No representation. Counsel for^Defendants

¶10

:: ORDER^!:

¶11

The^{ApplicantBank filed the present OA for the recovery of a} total sum of^{Rs.42,53,2871-towardsSecuredOverdraftaccount} with further^{interest @12.65hff._} .un"u, compounded A/ 4''"

¶12

oA.9l2O2s

¶13

monthly, Rs.1,11,691/- GECL-1 account with further interest @11.25olo^per annum compounded monthly and Rs.6,34,935/_ under GECL-2 account with further interest @11.250lo per annum compounded monthly, respectively from the defendants l and 2 from 26.tL2024 till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule assets.

¶14

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are: Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm and is represented by jts proprietor defendant No.2. At the request of defendant, applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit facility of Rs.15,00,000/- and a Term Loan of Rs.39,OO,OOO/- vide sanction letter dated 13.01.2017, followed by Working Capital Loan of Rs.30,00,000/_ on 16.11.2018, GECL of Rs.10,00,000/- on 19.07.2020. The Term Loan is to be repaid under 84 EMIS carrying interest @10.25yo per annum, cash credit is repayable on demand with interest @10.50o/o per annum and GECL repayable with 9.25olo interest per annum compounded monthly respectively. The credit facilities are secured by way of hypothecation of OA schedule assets. At the request of the defendant, the Working Capital Term Loan was renewed on 76.77.20t9, 04.04.2022, t4.02.2023, and GECL on 23.72.2020. Thereafter, defendants availed Covid.19 GECL of Rs.6,90,000/- and overdraft facility was enhanced to Rs.40,00,000/-. Defendants executed requisite loan documents as required from time to time. Defendants failed to repay the loans as agreed. Accordingly, applicant bank issued legal notice dated 23.I0.2024 to the defendants calling for payment of the outstanding dues. The defendants have not come forward to liquidate the liability. Hence the present OA. ,/Avz.* (-y'"*

¶15

oa.9l2o2s

¶16

M/s . T. Sridhar Reddy, Advocates, filed Vakalat on behalf of the defendants. However, defendants did not choose to file written statement. Accordingly, their right to file written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 27.08.2025.

¶17

Applicant Bank examined G. Meghanadh, Authorised Officer, as AW-1 and marked 55 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.55.

¶18

Defendants failed to adduce evidence on their behalf. Accordingly, their right of adducing evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 18.11.2025.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant bank reported no oral arguments. Defendants' right of advancing arguments^forfeited on 72.72.2025 for there being no representation on^their behalf. Perused the written arguments filed by^{the applicant} bank and the material^placed on^record.

¶20

According to applicant bank, defendants^{availed varioustypes} of loans, got them renewed/enhanced^{multipletimes besides} moratoTium during Covid.19 Pandemic.^However, they^{failed to} clear the dues as^per the agreed terms.^{Absence of counter-} clalm or set off^preserves applicant^{bank'sclean hands for full} relief. The applicant is having equitable^{first charge overthe} OA A-schedule hypothecated assets.^{Applicant bank proved its} claim against the defendants^{unopposed on the strength of} Exhibits A.1 to A.55 filed through the^{evidenceaffidavit of} AW.1.

¶21

8 The point that arises for consideration fix"^is:- (_/

¶22

oa.9l2025

¶23

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and the OA schedule assets2

¶25

As stated supra, defendants did not pursue the case right from the stage of filing the written submissions till the stage of arguments. Under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.55 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, I hold that defendants are liable to pay the claim made by the Appllcant Bank in the O.A with future interest and costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.9/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.49,99,913/(Rs.42,53,287 /- plus Rs.1,11,691/- and Rs.6,34,935/-) to the applicant bank with future interest @9.25olo per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of OA schedule assets and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its

¶30

¶31

o A.9|ZO25

¶32

iv) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶33

The Applicant Bank^{is directed to file CostMemowithin2 weeks} from the date of receipt^{of this Order.}

¶34

t2. Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶35

13, Communicate a^{copy of this order to the partiesconcernedand} upload on official^{Web Portal.}

¶36

(Dictated to the steno, signed and^{pronounced by me in theopen court on this the5rhday} of January, 2026).

¶37

Ow*

¶38

(nnh4fsHwaR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/S. Optrobox

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Optrobox

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Igenix Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Avula Ayyaswamy

M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Mr. M. Varada Reddy

Uco Bank versus M/S. Addas Agri Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Laxmi-E-Mobility

Udayagiri Eswaramma versus Karur Vysya Bank