Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a hefty loan amount with interest against the borrowers, rejecting their pleas of misuse of blank signatures and limitation bar.
The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed sum with interest; an issue of recovery certificate is directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-IAT HYDERABAD
DATED THrS THE lOrH DAY OF AUGUST,2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER
OA.No.42O of 2024
Between:
Canara Bank, Hanumakonda I branch, Balasamudram, Hanumakonda, Warangal district, TS - 506 001. Represented by its Chief Manager
Applicant
VERSUS
Sy. No. lTgL,Textile Pa rk,
Madikonda, Kazipet,
Warangal - 506 142.
Defendants
Counse! for the Parties:
For the
Ailr zuefi : il'tt Uploaded ilffi,.
Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju Sri V. Ravinder 04.08.2026 1 0.08. 2026 11.08.2026
(OA. No.420l2024)
ORDER
As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 which is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed term loan facility for a sum of Rs.92.50 lakhs and Working capital of Rs.7.50 lakhs, GECL of 20.00 lakhs and GECI 1.0 for a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs 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 defendants mortgaged the schedule property and executed necessary documents in favour of applicant bank. It is submitted,by-tl1e Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said
up the repayment schedule, as such i,.rne accounr NPA. Inspite of demands made by i- ooJ,'&#tn not regularized the account, so the ''., . ! tt ::'l'1""'*t7' '- ''.' t'.'-r'li;,
(oA.No.a20l2024)
Applicant bank issueddemand noticedated 29.09.2023, but the defendants didnot comeforwardto repaythe same'The totalclaim of Applicant againstdefendantsis of ofRs.L,76,48,927'29ps (Rupees One Crore Seventy Six LakhsForty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred TwentySeven and paise Twenty nine only) (Rs.1,38,48,216.97 + Rs,6,23,091.38ps+Rs'22,70,048.14ps + Rs.9,07,570,80ps )with interest@ 11.90% p'a with monthlyrests from 01.11.2024till the date of realization.Hence the OA'
on record.
3.
,{'-'-^@"
'$ qfi
4. .+Yd the ag
1 0 rlj6 ?028
,':-.)3,,,0.
, j . '- :: ; '!? .: :r:.-::
\i*:.-::ir.:
(oA.No.420l2024)
Point No.i):
(oA.No.42O/20?4\
blank documents is not tenable.The contentionof defendants that there is no necessity of obtainingcollateralsecurity by the applicant is also not tenable as nomaterialis placedby the defendants for establishing that for variousloan facilities availedby the defendants, collateral securityis not required.The other contention of defendants is that the claimmade by Applicant bank in oA is barred by limitation. But in view of thefact that defendants executedacknowledgement letter by acknowledgingtheir liabilityand as the said documents are executed within3 years from the date of filing of OA, the claim of the applicant bankis within time.considering all the circumstances,I am ofopinionthatthedefensetakenbythedefendantsiSnottenable. Hence the applicantbank is entitledto claim the OA amount from defendants.
Point No.ii)
The Defendantsare jointlyand severally liable to pay to ApplicantBank a total sum ofRs.1176, 48,927 .29ps(RupeesOne Crore Seventy Six Lakhs FortyEight Thousand Nine HundredTwentySeven andpaise. Twenty nine only)(Rs' 1,38,48'216'97 + j' -.:. . - ':'1 .-: -ffizS;os r.,:snfotli\Rs.22,7o,o 48. t4ps + Rs' 9,07, 5 70' 80 ps ) with f'fi^i.r"rra,h.r.i;H\rrom01.11.2024ti, the date or rearization; i1,ltrirDT?$ *ii
5
(oA.No.a20l202a)
(Dictated 60 thep.A., transcribedby her, corrected, signJano pronounced by mein the opencourton this the 1Os dayof Aug, 2026)
sd/-
(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDTNG OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank has proved its claim against the defendants?
Whether the defence on limitation filed by the defendants is tenable?
What relief is the appropriate court to grant the applicant bank?
CANARA BANK
M/S. HYMAVATHI TEXTILES
SMT SAMALA HAIMAVATHI
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
