Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sanjana Powerlooms Industry

DRT9 Apr 2026OA/37/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs. 1.64 crore with interest against the proprietorship firm and its proprietor who defaulted on secured loans and agreed mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability for payment of Rs. 1.64 crore with interest; permission to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; issuance of recovery certificate.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE Ogth DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRt GUMMADI GOPICHAND, pREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 37 OF 2026

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank, Hanamkonda - ll Branch, H.No. 2-5-39, Water Tank Road, Near Naveena Childrens Hospital, Nakkalgutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal District - 506 001, Telangana State Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sanjana Powerlooms lndustry, Rep. by its Prop. G. Rajender, S/o. Sambaiah, Plot No. 333, Survey No.^.1791/1, Kakatiya Textile Park, Madikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Warangal Urban District, Telangana.

¶9

G. Rajender, S/o. Sambaiah, Hindu, Aged about 49 years;

¶10

Occ. Business,

¶11

R/o. H.No. 2-72,lncherb,^: :,^t.: Mulugu 0^g Wara-ngatDistrict^' Defendants

¶12

(oA. No. 3712026)

¶13

Counsel for the parties :

¶14

For The Applicant T. Sasi Kumar For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 02.01.2026 Pronounced on 09.04.2026 Upload in website on 09.04.2026

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,64,12,913.75 ps. (Rupees One Crores Sixty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Thirteen and paise Seventy Five Only) with future interest @ 1 1.650/o p.a with monthry rests from the date of this application till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged^property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant No. 2 availed Term Loan facility of Rs.98,31 ,000/, , with interest @11.4% p.a with monthty rests repayable in EMl,'s of. Rs.1,53,116/- and working capitalfacility 2 D^g r,?fr tfr?i^.' : I . ->),

¶18

(oA. No. 3712026)

¶19

of Rs.15.00 Lakhs together with interest @11.4o/o p.a with monthly rests and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 12.02.2020 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no.^.l created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to the OA and executed Agreement Deed to Mortgage dated 12.02.2020 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 23.10.2023 and issued Demand notice dated 04.11.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2OO2 to the defendants. tnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 02.04.2026.

¶22

Sri. Srinivas Devasoth, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

b. The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendanls as prayed for?

¶25

3 09 rrop

¶26

(oA. No. 3712026)

¶27

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.14. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶28

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶29

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of 1,64,12,913.75 Ps. (Rupees One Crores Sixty Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Thirteen and Paise Seventy Five Only) with future interest @ 11.65% p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶30

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants No. 2 and properties of Defendant Og APfrM 4

¶32

(oA. No. 3712026)

¶33

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶34

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶35

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated-to.-the P A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 09th day ofApr,2026)

¶38

sd/(G. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

09
APR
.r1

¶40

."lliIiiEnrrno'

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sanjana Powerlooms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Sanjana Powerlooms Industry

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

Similar cases

A.Thirupathi versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

B Shiva Kumar versus Icici Finance Company Ltd.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Rayolu Naveen Kumar

Canara Bank versus M/S Ravvala Textiles

Mekala Balraj versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S.Sarojini Textiles