Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/227/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a debt recovery case where defendants appeared ex-parte, the Tribunal held the bank's evidence sufficient. It directed joint and several liability to pay the principal sum with future interest, permitted action against hypothecated assets, and allowed costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 26,58,923.48 with future interest @9.15% p.a.; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and other properties for realization.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGiNAL APPLICATION No : 227 0F 2026

¶5

Canara Bank., Narsingi Branch, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶6

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall., A Proprietary Concern, 2-77 -3 / 6/ 7 Pati Devaa nda Complex, Narsingi Rajend ranagar Nlanda I Rangareddy District, TS - 500075.

¶10

Sm. Mamta Devi, W/o. Late Sri Rajaram, Major, Female Viveka nand Colony, Na rslng i Rajend ranagar Mandal Rangareddy Dist - 500075.

¶11

Ravi, S/o. Late Sri Rajaram Major, Male, Vivekana nd Colony Narsingi, Rajendranagar Manda I Ranga Reddy District - 500075.

¶12

[4rs. Manisha, D/o. Late Sri Rajaram Major, Female, Vivekanand Colony Na rsingi, Rajend ra nagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District - 500075.

¶13

... Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Gampa Rangaiah Defendants Yt\ -, .:^Ex-parte {.u.L\ L1:<sup>!

oA.NO,22712026

::^q-BgE-IL::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.26,58,923'48ps^{from the defendantsjointly and} severally^{withfuture lnterest@11 4oyo p a' with monthlyrests} from the date of^{application till the date of realizationalong} with costs and in default^{for saleof hypothecatedassets'}

¶19

Summons^served on D1 to 4 through^{paper publication. They} on 19.06.2026 as^{called absent and no}

¶20

were set exparte representatlon.

¶21

The Applica nt Bank examined^{VedratnaKumar, LegalManager,} as AW-1 and marked 10 documents^{through him as Ex A'1 to} Ex. A.10.

¶22

Heard the Ld.^{Counsetfor the Applicant Bank Perused the} material Placed^{on record.}

¶23

The^point that^{arlses for consideration is:-}

¶24

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendants and^{OA hypothecated} assets?

¶25

As stated^{supra, the Defendants remained ex-parteThe} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10^{marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the^{claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendantsare jointly and severallyliable} to^pay the OA^{claim to the Applicant} \Bank^{with future interest} 7 t"n '' 't

¶26

and costs. .:_:.r'^l '"

¶27

oA.NO.227l2026

¶28

In the result, the^{present Original Application No'227/2026 is} allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.26,58,923.48ps^{with future interest} @9.15olo^{p.a. simple from the date of} application till^{the date of realization;}

¶30

the OA claim is^{secured bY waYof}

¶31

ii) hypothecation of^{assets described in the} schedule annexed^{tothe OA and the} applicant bank^{is entitledto proceed against} the same to realise^{its debU}

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file^{Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of^{this Order'}

¶35

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶36

Communicate^{a coPY of this order} to the^{parties concerned,} pronounced by me^{in the open court on}

¶37

(Dlctated to the steno,^{corrected,signedand} this the 22"d^{DaYof June, 2026).}

¶38

frwu'o ((x(esnwnR KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

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

Mr Yempalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Perumandla Kishan versus M S Ikf Home Finance

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hygiene Retail India Private Ltd.

M/S Icici Bank Limited versus Andem Panduranga Reddy