Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Unique and Nice Restaurant.

DRT29 Jul 2026OA/442/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Canara Bank for the recovery of dues aggregating over Rs.1.04 Crore from five defendants. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable based on evidence affidavits and marked documents, ordering payment of principal, interest, and costs, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay total sum of Rs.1,04,16,662.34 with future interest; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Unique and Nice Restaurant. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB.^{(HONS.),IY.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 442 OF 2026

¶6

Canara Bank., Nandyal Main I Branch, D.No.25l516a Srinivasanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool Andhra Pradesh - 518501. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Unique and Nice Restaurant., Regd. office Address: D.No.25l687-C Revenue Ward 25, Padmavathi^Nagar Road, Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra^Pradesh -^518501.

¶10

Restaurant Address:^- Sy.No.752, Moolasagaram,^Nandyal -^518501'

¶11

Smt. Burra Lakshmi Sujatha, Wo.^Burra Venkata Ramana, H.No.2-428-44,^Balaji Complex, Balaji Kalyana^MandaPam Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra^Pradesh -^518501.

¶12

Sri. Burra Venkata Ramana,^{S/o.Late Burra} Venkatesham, H.No.2-428-44,^Balaji Complex, Balaji Kalyana MandaPam Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra^Pradesh -^518501.

¶13

Sri. Burra Ramakrishna,^{S/o. Late Burra} Venkatesham, H.No.2-428-44,^Balaji Complex, Balaji Kalyana^l,landaPam Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra^Pradesh -^518501.

¶14

Smt. Ranga Saidamma, Wo.^Ranga Subbarayudu, H.No.2-428-44,^Balaji Complex, Balaji Kalyana^MandaPam Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra^PradAsh -^518501. /AVa.P

u"rn-

... Defendants

oA.NO.44212026

Counsel for the Applicant

¶20

: Mr. P. Sai Chandrasekhar

Defenda nts

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,04,16,662.34ps i.e., a sum of Rs.87,88,558.16ps towards MSME Loan 170009927222 and a sum of Rs.16,28,104.18ps towards MSME Loan 17OOt4733t7O from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @12olo p.a. with monthly rests from 06.03.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶25

Summons served on D1 to 5. They were set ex-parte on 2A.O7.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined K J Pavithran Kumar, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 74 documents through him as Ex. A. 1 to Ex. A.14.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶28

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶29

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶30

As stated su pra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The

¶31

Evidence Affidavit 'd22il:+:* recitals in the documents

¶32

oA.NO.442l2026

¶33

¶34

viz., Exs. A.1 to A.14 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.

¶35

In the result, the^present Original Application No.44212026 is allowed as under: -

¶36

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,04,16,662.34ps i.e., a sum of Rs.87,88,558.16ps towards MSME Loan 770009921222 and a sum of Rs.16,28,104.18ps towards MSME Loan 17007473377Ot with future interest @11.650/o^p.a. simple^{from the date of} application till the date of realization;

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

iv) the applica nt entitled for the costs. K*'$

¶40

¶41

oA.NO.44212026

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

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 29th Day ofJuly, 2026).

¶45

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s. Unique and Nice Restaurant.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Unique and Nice Restaurant.

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

Ms St Jobs Christian Minority Educational Society versus Canara Bank

Ms Trmr Earth Movers Transport versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Mr Dumpala Venkata Laxmi Narayana versus Indian Bank

Yes Bank Limited versus Karthik Namani

Canara Bank versus M/s. Gsr Enterprises.

South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Smt. Kalla Rajeshwari