Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sai Ram Powerlooms Industry

DRT16 Jul 2026OA/301/2025

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 and guarantor. The court rejected defenses regarding blank documents and limitation, holding that the bank is entitled to the claimed amount and proceeds against mortgaged/hypothecated security.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,43,79,862.99 with future interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sai Ram Powerlooms Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 15rH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.3O1 ot 2025

Between:

Canara Bank,

Hanumakonda II branch, H.No.2-5-39, Water Tank Road, Near Naveena Children Hospital, Nakkalgutta, Hanumakonda, Warangal district, TS - 506 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Sai Ram Powerlooms Industry, Plot no.340, Survey no.l79l/L, Kakatiya Textile park, Madikonda Village, Kazipet, Warangal (urban) Telangana - 506 142.

¶11

Mrs. Pinninti Dhamani, ,,r-: .,.:i,--<-1-
w/o Pinninti Sreekanth, ',.dO1 Sil<br>H.No.33-4-293, Thimmapur d\ - - f' 'B\
(Haveli), Khila Warangal, ..i., .j5- 'l-
Warangal, Telangana - 506 a-0?.
*\ OefenOants
., 15J&2m
!
'r3

¶12

Defendants : Sri V. Ravinder Orders reserved on : 14.07.2026 Pronounced on : 16.07.2026 Uploaded in website on : 16.07.2026

¶13

Orders reserved on

¶14

(o A.3O1./20251

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants^for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,43,79,862.99ps^(Rupees Two Crores Forty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two and paise Ninety Nine only) (term loan+ ODl OCC + GECL and GCL 1.0 loan accounts)^{with futureinterest} @ 11olo^p.a with monthly^{rests from 22.06.2025 till the date of} realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 which is a^{proprietorship firm} represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed term loan facility for a sum of Rs.98,31,000/- on 27.03.2019, OD/OCC facility of Rs.15.00 lakhs, GECL limit of Rs.5.00 lakhs and GECL 1.0 limit of Rs.28.00 lakhs and agreed to repay along with interest. The defendants hypothecated the machinery as mentioned in schedule to OA and executed supplementary hypothecation and^personal guarantee in favour of Applicant bank. The defendants mortgaged the schedule property and executed necessary documents in favour of apBtieant bank. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the .,ilepayment-'Sthedulefa\such #**,$;"ffi::;;"^the ::-^{account was classified} : :: ::::,: :":H'":^{as NPA on} ii.+.rJrtrwl tffi,," lr,]il"rnuno, made by^Appricant the defendants '1r. x ^^#'; '&*r,#' z

¶18

":.:7

¶19

(oA.301/202s)

¶20

have not regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued demand notice dated 06.t1.2023, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2,43,79,862.99ps (Rupees Two Crores Forty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Eaght Hundred Sixty Two and paise Ninety Nine only) (term loan+ ODl OCC + GECL and GCL 1.0 loan accounts) with future Interest @ 11% p.a with monthly rests from 22.06.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the oA.

¶21

The Defendants filed written statement admitting that they availed various loan facilities from the Applicant bank. The contention of the defendants is that at the time of sanction of loan, the applicant bank obtained signatures of defendants on various blank papers and they are misused by the applicant bank. The further contention of the defendants is that even though there is no requirement of obtaining collateral security, the applicant bank obtained equitable mortgage of schedule property and that the claim of the applicant bank is barred by limitation. Hence^prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶22

I have perused the doc{menfttplaced on record.
//;#:
4. Heardtheim.*.S "b<br>.r 5 'P m26 :i
{(i -br
N,a
,
.#a{- .,€.f
-@e-#

¶23

(oA.301/202s)

¶24

Mr. G. Rajesh, Manager / AW.1^{is examined on behalf of the Applicant.} Exhibits A.1 to A.13 are marked through AW.1.^{DefendantNo.2} examined herself as DW.1 but no documents are^{exhibited by her.}

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has^proved its claim as^{made in OA} against the defendants ?

¶27

ii) To what relief ?

¶28

Point No.i):

¶29

On behalf of the applicant bank, Shri G. Rajesh, Manager who is examined as AW.1 deposed clearly about the liability of the defendants and also about the execution of various documents filed by the applicant bank. AW.1 is not cross examined by the defendants. So the evidence of AW.1 is not challenged by the defendants. Defendants have not come forward for giving evidence. For reasons best known to the defendants they shunned the witness box. So the evidence ofAW.1 stood unrebutted by the defendants. Even though defendant no.2 examined herself as DW.1, her evidence is no way helpful to the defendanr ing the contentions raised by the defendants. 'rnoErlft ments exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear thEi all ant documents are executed by the 1 6 JUI ?CI28^* s in the normal eg of transaction. So the contention of icant bank obtained their signatures on 4

¶30

(oA.301/202s)

¶31

blank documents is not tenable. The contention of defendants that there is no necessity of obtaining collateral security by the applicant is also not tenable as no material is placed by the defendants for establishing that for various loan facilities availed by the defendants, collateral security is not required. The other contention of defendants is that the claim made by Applicant bank in OA is barred by limitation. But in view of the fact that defendants executed acknowledgement letter by acknowledging their liability and as the said documents are executed within 3 years from the date of filing of OA, the claim of the applicant bank is within time. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants.

¶32

Point No.ii)

¶33

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶34

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,43,79,862.99ps (Rupees Two Crores Forty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two and paise Nine only) (term loan+ ODl OCC + GECL and .,7'l;fllfrr GCL )^{with futureinterest} @^{11olo p.a} from ,,,6h$b;'.;#

¶35

16Jutm6 2 ri r.' $1. 1q ^{i", W**#l' ,o

¶36

(oA.301/202s)

¶37

The applicant bank is entitled to^{proceed against the mortgaged} property and hypothecated movables as^{mentioned in the scheduleto} OA towards realization^{of the debt due.}

¶38

The Applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceed againstthe personand} properties of defendant No.2 and^properties of defendant^{no.1 towards} realization of the debt due.

¶39

The Applicant Bank is entitled^{to the costs of the OA.}

¶40

t2. The Applicant shall^{file a cost memo within two weeks from the date} of receipt of order.

¶41

Issue Recovery^{certificateaccordingly.}

¶42

Communicate a copy^{of the order to the parties concerned'}

¶43

(Dictated 60 the P.A,, transcribed by her, corrected,^{signedand pronouncedby mein the opencourt on} this the 16s day of JulY,²⁰²⁶⁾

¶44

sdl_

¶45

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

i
Qo

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sai Ram Powerlooms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sai Ram Powerlooms Industry

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

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Sri Gudala Girish versus State Bank of India

Kondeti Devadayamani versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahalaxmi Agencies

Murugu Sadasiva Naidu versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Sri Nagulapally Chandraiah