Allowed

Canara Bank v. Karthik Powerlooms

DRT2 Sept 2026OA/386/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's original application for recovery of Rs.1.83 crore plus interest against M/s. Karthik Powerlooms Industry. The court rejected the defendant's plea of blank signatures and limitation as unrebuttably challenged evidence and invalid assertions respectively.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs.1,83,45,994.53 with interest on specified accounts; applicant entitled to realize debt from hypothecated movables and other properties.

Canara Bank versus Karthik Powerlooms — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THrS THE 2ND^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

OA.No.386 of 2025

Between:

Canara Bank,

Branch at H.No.2-5-39, Water tank road,^{near Naveena} Chitdren HosPital,^Nakkalgutta, Hanmakonda,^{Warangal Dist - 506 001'} Represented bY^{its ChiefManager}

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Karthik^{Powerlooms IndustrY} Represented^{bY its ProPrietor,} Plot no.162,^{Survey no.L79tll,} KakatiYa^TexYtile Park, Madikonda^Village, KaziPet mandal,^{Warangal (urban)} Telangana -^{506 142.}

¶11

Also at:

¶12

H.No.B-31,^{PalakurthY dist,} Warangal -^{506 252.}

¶13

Defendant

¶14

Counsel^{for the Parties:}

¶15

For the APPlicant

¶16

Ms. Sangeetha^laiswal

¶17

Sri V. Ravinder Defendants' 2 5.08. 2026 Orderi:leServed^on 't 0 2 .09.²⁰²⁶ "l{r.p ?ififr 02.09.2026 website on

¶18

(oA.386 of 2025)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,g3,45,994.53ps (Rupees One Crore Eighty Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety four and paise Fifty three only )i.e.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.19,49,171.90ps in A/c.No.125003g9g870 with interest @ 13.25olo p.a (along with penal interest @ 2%) from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.7,00,699.38ps in A/c.No.17OOO764L42I with interest @ It.2So/o p.a (along with penal interest @ 2olo ) from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶23

c) A sum of Rs.4,06,601.8gps in A/c.No.36019160001263 with interest @ 11.25olo p.a (along with penal interest @ 2olo ) from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶24

d) A sum of Rs.1,52,89,52I.37ps in A/c.36019910001020 with interest @ 13.20olo p.a (along with penal interest @ 2olo) from date of application till the date of realization ; and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as mentioned

¶25

in the schedule to OA.

¶26

t , per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank . a,-,ot

¶27

states tttat' the defendant No.1 which is a proprietorship firm ,1'j.:. bv its proprietor availed term toan facitity for a sum of

¶28

, !?.?t1Yt"d Rs.98.31 lakhs, working capital of Rs.15.00 takhs, GECL_I limit of

¶29

(oA.386 of 202s)

¶30

Rs.5.00 lakhs and GECL-II limit of Rs.5.90 lakhs and agreed to repay along with interest. The defendant hypothecated the machinery as mentioned in schedule to OA and executed supplementary hypothecation and personal guarantee 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 29.10.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant has not regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 15.11.2024, but the defendant did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is of Rs.1,83,45,994.53ps (Rupees One Crore Eighty Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety four and^paise Fifty three only )^(term loan+ working capital + GECL-I and GECL II loan accounts) with future interest @ 13.25%^p.a, @ Ll.25o/op.a, @13.20olo^p.a respectively from date of application till the date of^realization. Hence the OA.

¶31

The Defendant filed written^{statementadmitting that they availed} various loan facilities from the^{Applicantbank. The contention of the} OefenO11l is that at the time of^{sanction of loan,the applicant bank} obtainedrsignatures of defendants^{on various blank papers and they} ..l l ardifltisused by the applicant bank^{and that the claim of the applicant} L bank is QarrEd by limitation.^{Hence prayedfor dismissalof OA.}

¶32

(OA.386 of 2025)

¶33

I have perused the documents^placed on record.

¶34

Heard the arguments.

¶35

Mr. G. Rajesh, Chief Manager / AW.1 is examined on behalf of the Applicant. Exhibits A.1 to A.26 are marked through AW.1. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 but no documents are exhibited by him.

¶36

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶37

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ?

¶38

ii) To what relief ?

¶39

Point No.i):

¶40

On behalf of the applicant bank, Shri G. Rajesh, Chief Manager who is examined as AW.1 deposed clearly about the liability of the defendant and also about the execution of various documents filed by the applicant bank. AW.1 is not cross examined by the defendant. So the evidence of AW.1 is not challenged by the defendant. so the evidence of AW.l,stood unreQutted by the defendant. Even though defendant 2

¶41

.{' 2-, :.^{*1 -: ::'.. -} II

¶42

,/f;':examlne{ '^{himsblf a{ DW.1,his evidence is no way helpful to the}

¶43

,!.' .:

¶44

' "1 , ,1^{tdefendant fo.estabrishing the contentionsraised} by the defendant. t. I t _e,l?^{';i]A perusalof the documents exhibitedby the Applicantbank}

¶45

'^t, makes clearrf-that.lail the rerevant documents are executed by the

. ,, ...,1 :i, 4

. ::,,. .. :... t

(oA.386 of 202s)

defendant in the normal course of transaction. So the contention of the defendant that the applicant bank obtained signatures on blank documents is not tenable. The contention of defendant is that there is no necessity of obtaining collateral security by the applicant is also not tenable as no material is placed by the defendant for establishing that for various loan facilities availed by the defendant, collateral security is not required. The other contention of defendant 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 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 defendant is^not tenable.^{Hence the} applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount^{from defendant.}

¶50

Point No.ii)

¶51

In the result, the^present Original application^{is allowed with costsas} under:

¶52

The Defendant is liable to^pay to^Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,83,45,994.53ps^(Rupees One Crore Eighty Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety four and paise Fifty

¶53

(oA.386 of 2025)

¶54

a) A sum of Rs.19,49,171.90ps^{in A/c.No.125003898870 with} interest @ 11.25olo^p.a from date of application^{till the date} of realization;

¶55

b) A sum of Rs.7,00,699.38ps^{in A/c.No.170007641428with} interest @ 9.25olo^p.a from date of application^{till the date of} realization;

¶56

c) A sum of Rs.4,06,601.88ps in A/c.No.36019160001263^with interest @ 9.25olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶57

d) A sum of Rs.1,52,89,52L.37ps in A/c.36019910001020 with interest @11.20olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶58

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶59

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶60

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

¶61

.,t,'...,.,."12:^{The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date} , of receipt of order. h rl ui.,,,. 1 1 '.1

.,.
.t.

(0A.385 of 202s)

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶66

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

¶67

(Dictated 60 the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of Sept, 2026)

¶68

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

W:6!W
o"+fhmfi'^"

¶70

Canara Bank v. Karthik Powerlooms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Karthik Powerlooms

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ind Cotton Garments LLP

Govardhan Sirangi versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Puspak Energy Industry versus Union Bank of India

Telangana Grameena Bank versus Thalluri Sandhya

Canara Bank versus M/S Rahul Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Mallikarjun Textiles