Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Vinayaka Textiles

DRT16 Jul 2026OA/333/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Canara Bank against M/s. Vinayaka Textiles for recovery of outstanding loan amounts totaling over Rs. 1.65 crores, dismissing defenses raised by the defendant regarding blank signatures and limitation.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay the applicant bank the total claimed sum of interest-free principal plus future interest at the specified rates from 08.07.2025, and the bank is entitled to proceed agai

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vinayaka Textiles — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.333 ot 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Branch office at Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal district, TS - 506 002. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Vinayaka^Textiles, A proprietarY concern^of Smt Vurugonda^Shantha Represented by^{its Sole Proprietress,} Smt Vurugaonda^Shantha, W/o V. Sriramulu,^{aged 54} Years, #Plot no.18, survey^no.l79lll, Textile Park,^{Madikonda,KaziPet,} Warangal - 504¹⁴² :Tj;i:",,.#s\ i\l Kesamudram,^WaraHgl, I I J& m Defendant TS - 506 112. 1\g "l! !/; il :::HIil:""":"',"',.'' nuuinOru Reddy Defendant : Sri V' Ravinder Orders^reservedon : I4'Q7 .2026 Pronounced on : 16'07 .2026 Uploaded^{in website on} : L6'07 .2026

¶10

(oA.3 33/202s)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,65,48,305.32ps (Rupees One Crore Sixty five Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Three hundred Six and Thirty Two paise only) i.e.,

¶13

a) A sum of Rs.1,42,84 ,969.44ps under Term loan account with future interest @ 10.15olo p.a with monthly rests from 08.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶14

b) A sum of Rs.2,49,300.32ps under GECL 1.0 loan account with future interest @ 8.85o/o p.a with monthly rests from 08.07.2025 till the date of rea lization ;

¶15

c) A sum of Rs.10,22,967.08ps under GECL 1 TL extension loan account with future Interest @ 8.g50/o p.a with monthly rests from 08.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶16

d) A sum of Rs.9,91,069.48ps under occ roan account with future interest @ 11.650/o p.a with monthry rests from 08.07.2025 tiil the date of realization ;

¶17

and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶18

lfrfi,FE Hftq4ents^{in the apptication, the AppticantBank}

¶19

",T4ffi'Bffir-N is a proprietorship rirm represented bv ||: ,.TrfTEi'rin u,,"4\l,u'rn toan racirity ror a sum or * ttl!,,rtry;^"" "*.J,^{ff ,",^ roan raciritv extensionor}

¶20

'\S#r:,.':fi'9.' 2

¶21

Vrr*'

¶22

(oA.333/202s)

¶23

Rs.3,40,000/-, GECL 1 TL Extension loan facility of Rs.g,50,000/- and OD/ OCC limit f Rs.7,50,000/- 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 defendant mortgaged the schedule property and executed necessary documents in favour of applicant bank. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendant availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 29.L0.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant have not regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued demand notice dated Ol.Lt.2023, but the defendant did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is of (term loan+ ODl OCC + GECL and GCL 1.O loan accounts) with future interest @ 10.15olo% p.a, @ B.B5o/o p.a, @ 8.85%p.a and 11.650/o p.a respectively with monthly rests from 08.07.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

The Defendant filed written statement admitting that they availed various loan facilities from thd Applicant bank. The contention of the la nt rs.' e time of sanction of loan, the applicant bank '" '-'i:',lk" ' \ ed siffiures ndant on various blank papers and they are *{ grl,JfEfmppri&A} uanr<. rhe further contention of the &lOr..,^{is that ep1$[iouOnthere is no requirement of obtaining} ,Q@'3

¶25

(oA.333/202sl

¶26

collateral security, the applicant bank^{obtained equitable mortgageof} schedule^property and that the claim of the^{applicant bankis barred} by limitatlon. Hence^prayedfor dismissal^{of OA.}

¶27

I have^perused the documents^{placed on record.}

¶28

Heard the arguments.

¶29

Mr. lakka Nagaraju, Chief^Manager /^{AW.1 who was examinedon} behalf of the Applicant. Exhibits A.1 to^{A.34 are marked through AW.1.} Defendant examined herself as DW.1 but no documents are^exhibited by her.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has^proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ? ii) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.a):

¶32

On behalf of the applicant bank, Shri J. Nagaraju, Manager who^is examined as AW.1 deposed clearly about the liability of the defendants of various documents filed by the

¶33

AW. cross examined by the defendants. So

¶34

'EvioEpry Slrfyd '' by the defendants. Defendant evidence. For reasons best known to

¶35

¶36

(oA.333/202s)

¶37

the defendants they shunned the witness box. So the evidence ofAW.1 stood unrebutted by the defendant. Even though defendant no.2 examined herself as DW.1, her evidence is no way helpful to the defendant for establishing the contentions raised by the defendants.

¶38

A perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. So the contention of the defendant that the applicant bank obtained their signatures on 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 defendant, 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 defendant executed acknowledgement letter by acknowledging the 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 defendant is not tenable. Hence the .pr1il{i-$l.,I]N$tiued to ctaim the oA amounr from t-.ff '''uE\ der endan1k.. Point Nii.fi) I 6 JUt ztrz[ I B. rn tne rej5fr1, tfre present Origiililipptication is ailowed with costs as under:'' i,,.h,*"q$ry,'t '.iQ"dP',

¶39

(oA.333/2o2sl

¶40

The Defendant is liable to^pay to Applicant^{Bank a total sum of} Rs.1,65,48,3O6.32ps (Rupees One Crore Sixty^{five Lakhs Fofi} Eight Thousand Three hundred Six and^{Thirty Two paise only)}

¶41

i.e.,

¶42

A) A sum of Rs.1,42,84,969.44ps under Term^{loan account wlth} future interest @ 10.15olo^p.a from 08.07.2025^{till the date of} rea lization ;

¶43

B) A sum of Rs.2,49,300.32ps under GECL^{1'0 loan account with} future interest @ 8.85o/o^p.a from 08.07.2025^{till the date of} realization;

¶44

C) A sum of Rs.10,22,967.08ps under GECL^{1 TL extension loan} account with future interest @ 8.85o/o^{p.a from 08.07.2025till} the date of realization ;

¶45

D) A sum of Rs.9,91,069.48ps under OCC loan account^{with future} interest @ 11.65% p.a from 08.07.2025 till the date^of realization;

¶46

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

¶47

titled to^proceed against the^personand rds realization of the debt due.

¶48

(oA.333/202s)

¶49

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶50

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

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

L4. communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July, 2026)

sd/ -

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

l[RUE
[l/ 94'
Asstl(egFtrar
DRT.I, HYDSRASAN

¶58

Canara Bank v. M/S. Vinayaka Textiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Vinayaka Textiles

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