Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Satya Durga Industries

DRT8 May 2026OA/341/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In debt recovery proceedings, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application seeking recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 31,05,338.87 plus interest, finding the debt legally established and the limitation argument repelled.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 31,05,338.87 with future interest @ 13% p.a.; Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated/ mortgaged properties and personal assets for realiz

Canara Bank versus M/S Satya Durga Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 8rH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.341 ot 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Canara Bank, Miryalaguda branch, Nalgonda, Telangana State Represented by its Authorised officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Satya Durga Industries, Represented by its Proprietor, Smt Sangisetty Rama devi, w/o Sri Sangisetty Srinivas, aged about 51 years, occ: business, 15/4, yadgarpally, Miryalguda, Nalgonda district, Telangana.

¶10

Also at:

¶11

9- 135, Seetharampuram, Miryalguda, Nalgonda, TS - 508 207.

¶12

Sri Sangisetty Srinivas, s/o Sri lanaiah Sangisetty, aged about 57 years, occ: business, 19- 135, Seetharampuram, Miryalguda, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508 207. Defenda nts Counsel for the P For the Applica ngeetha laiswal Defendants ri M. Arun

¶13

(oA. No.341/2025 )

¶14

Orders reservedon	:	05.05.2026
Pronouncedon	:	08.05.2026
Uploadedin websiteon	:	12.05.2026

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,O5,338.87ps (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Eight and paise Eighty Seven only) with future interest @ 13olo p.a inclusive of penal interest @ 2olo with monthly rests from 02.07.2025 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 is a firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed cash credit facility of Rs.30.00 lakhs on 29.03.2022. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the loan availed and the defendants executed cash credit agreement, guarantee agreement. The cash credit loan facility is primarily secured by hypothecation of Plant, machinery, stocks and book debts and collaterally secured by equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned

¶18

To secure the loan facility, the defendants deposited the 6 W "iurg document no.20B1/2011 of SRO, Miryalguda on lp zr.OWO22.^{'1</sup> is submitted by the Appticant bank that the J 6&uffA[rffU6uru,flft,n" said toan facitities and faited to keep up the Wr*'n#}

¶19

(oA. No.3a 1/202s )

¶20

repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA on t7.L2.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued demand notice dated L4.06.2025, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.31,O5,338.87ps (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred Tharty Eight and paise Eighty Seven only) with future interest @ 13% p.a inclusive of penal interest @ 2olo with monthly rests from 02.07.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶21

The Defendant No.1 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that the applicant bank claim is barred by limitation. It is further contended that even the loan agreement and guarantee agreement dated 31.10.2019 are not properly stamped and not admissible in evidence. It is further contended that the classification of account as NPA is not as per the RBI guidelines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶22

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶23

ents. that arise for consideration are:

¶24

¶25

(OA. No.3a1l202s)

¶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

Mr. Suman Prakash, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.13 are marked through AW.1.

¶30

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendants in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the Applicant bank failed to follow the RBI guidelines as per the norms.

¶31

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to te that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in ch circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with fx.n.f$t\ A.13 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The lni^* r, * 1 2 n/''r rdd.a'{,

¶32

¶33

(OA. No.341/202s)

¶34

Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to^pay

¶35

the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶36

Point No.ai)

¶37

B. In the result, the^present Original application is allowed with costs as u nde r:

¶38

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.31,O5,338.87ps (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs

¶39

Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Eight and paise Eighty Seven only) with future interest @ 13% p.a from 02.07.2025 ttl the date of realization.

¶40

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

¶41

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 Industry towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

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

¶43

le a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶44

(OA. No.3a1l2025 )

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her. corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day ot May, 2026)

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

b
-N"

-tq
rrp I 81ht
7
H 12 ttAr ryn
W'#

Canara Bank v. M/S Satya Durga Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Satya Durga Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Bioeq Care Private Limited

Mr Mohammed Ameenuddin Saleem versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Sky Bricks Industry

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Vignatha Granites

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Laxmi Narasimha Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Burra Mahesh