Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Cemetrix It Services Private Limited.

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/228/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Arbeitsgericht allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with future interest and costs, secured by mortgage properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.3,07,37,806.18 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and defendant assets for dues recovery.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Cemetrix It Services Private Limited. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THiS THE 22ND DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com.,^{L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINALAPPLICATION No: 228 OF²⁰²⁶

¶6

Canara Bank., Chandanagar Branch, D. No.2- 105/C/204 Plot No.90, Near Gangaram Bus StoP Chandanagar, R R District,^{Hyderabad-500050.} Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus
1.M/s. Cemetrix ITServices^{PrivateLimited.,} 68,Sy.No.80-84,Sixth^{Floor, Milange} Towers, Patrika Nagar,MadhaPur HitechCity,Hyderabad-500081.
2.Mr.RajeshGuptha^{Kotha,S/o.Srivaslu} Kotha, Major, Occ:Business R/o. Flat No.303,YSR^{Enclave, PlotNo.E5} Manikonda,Hyderabad-500089.
3.Ms.ShipaBanda,^{D/o.B P RanqaRao} Major, R/o.o.No.l-21606/80/77 LICColony,OppIndira^{Park, Domalaguda} Hyderabad-5OOO29. '^Defendants
Counselfor^theApplicant :Mr. Gampa^Rangaiah
DeFendants :Ex-Parte

¶9

::^qLLq& ::

¶10

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.3,07,37,806'^{18ps towards SOD/OD/WorkingCapital} from the defendants^{jointly and severallywith future interest} 4ry"*

¶11

oa.No.22a12026

¶12

¶13

@11.20%^p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶14

Summons served on D1 to 3 through paper publication. They were set exparte on 19.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined Badana Anusha, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 26 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.26.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

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

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.26 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the present originat Apptication No.22812026 is alowed as under: - OYurrO

¶21

oA.NO.22A/2026

¶22

¶23

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.3,07,37,806.18ps towards OD/OD/ Working Capital with future interest @8.600/0 p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of^mortgage of properties described in the^schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant^{bank is} entitled to proceed against the same^to realise its debt;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certlficate^{according ly.}

¶29

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 22"d Day ofJune,^2026).

¶30

$aL

¶31

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s. Cemetrix It Services Private Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Cemetrix It Services Private Limited.

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

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