Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Distributors.

DRT28 Jul 2026OA/404/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 40,35,525.86 plus interest and costs from the defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 40,35,525.86 with interest at 11.25% p.a.; enforced hypothecation and recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Venkateswara Distributors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28TI1 DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINALAPPLICATION No: 404 OF 2026

¶5

Canara Bank.,

¶6

Sarada Nagar Branch, 1't Main Road Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Sarada Nagar Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh - 515005. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Distributors.,

¶10

Shop No. 4, D No. 18-169, Umanagar Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh - 515001.

¶11

Sri. G. Mahesh (Proprietor)

¶12

S/o. G. Venkatesulu, D. No.13-3-582 Sai Ma heswara Apartment, Anantapur Andhra Pradesh - 515001. ...Defendants

¶13

: Mr. P. Sai Chandrasekhar Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.40,35,525. B6ps towards MSN'IE OD Loan 32351400000479 from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @11.25yo p.a. with monthly interests from 05.03.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale ol hypothecated assets.^{l nrr-r,} ,'r^{</sup> !].'}

¶18

oA.NO.404/2026

¶19

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 27 -07.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined Pragada Karthikeya, Legal lvlanager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the materlal placed on record.

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶24

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.40412026 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.40,35,525.86ps towards MSME OD Loan 32351400000479 with future interest fi'ry'o't\

¶27

oA.NO.4O4l2026

¶28

¶29

@11.25%^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th Day of July, 2026).

¶36

ffis'o (Mi'rfsHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Distributors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Distributors.

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

Kallakuntla Janardhan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Vinayaka Cold Storage versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Sri.Ashish Rahul Bhupathi and others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Nunavath Pentya

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Hitha Net India Pvt. Ltd.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Jaya Shakthi Rail Mech.