Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Jai Ambye Power Looms Industry

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's recovery application, holding that the bank established its claim and is entitled to recover the outstanding dues with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The present OA is allowed. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the total sum of Rs.1,86,76,278/- along with future interest and costs. A recovery certificate is issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S Jai Ambye Power Looms Industry — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 17rH DAy OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.462 of 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank, Hanamkonda-II branch, Hanamakonda district, Warangal - 506 001. TS Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Jai Ambye Powerlooms Industry, Represented by its proprietor, Plot no.43, survey No.L79t/1, Powerloom park, Madikonda village Kazipet mandal, Warangal Urban, Telangana - 506 142. 2. Sri S. Sammaiah, s/o Sri Ramaiah, aged major, occ: business, H.No.2-83-2, Gudipahad Banglapally, Pidisilla, Mogullapally mandal, Warangal - 506 366. Defendants Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri T. Nagender For the Defendants Exparte Reserved on Lt.02.2026 Pronounced on 17.02.2026 Uploaded in website on 17.02.2026

¶9

(OA.No.a621202s)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,g6,76,27gl- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Six Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Eight only) i.e.,

¶12

a) A sum of Rs.19,69,569/- under OD facility with further interest @ 12.5o/o p.a with monthly rests from OL.O7.2OZS till the date of realization;

¶13

b) A sum of Rs.1,58,54 ,527/- under Term loan facility with interest @ L3.65o/o p.a with monthly rests from OLO7.2O25 till the date of realization;

¶14

c) A sum of Rs.2,44,5I7/- under GECL-I facility with interest @ L1.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from 0t.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶15

d) A sum of Rs.6,07,665/- under GECL-2 facility with interest @ 71.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from Ol.O7.ZO2S till the date of realization;

¶16

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶17

in the application, the Applicant Bank states that lisa rietorship firm represented by its proprietor/

¶18

dErenopTt sh credit loan facility of Rs.15.00 lakhs and

¶19

(oA.No.a62l202s)

¶20

term loan facility of Rs.98,31,000/- against hypothecation of plant and machineries, stocks, furniture and book debts. To secure the loan facilities, defendant no.1 deposited their title deeds with intention to create equitable mortgage of immovable property as mentioned in the schedule to OA. Again the defendants availed short term loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs to provide liquidity support to defendant no.1 firm and agreed to repay the same in 48 months with a moratorium period of 12 months from date of disbursement. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA and demand notice was issued on 04.71.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte on Lt.02.2026.

¶22

Sri D. Srinivas, senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.35.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The poi for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is ..made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶25

(oA.No.452l202s)

¶26

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.35. In 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.

¶27

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,86,76,2781- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Six Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Eight only) i.e.,

¶28

a) A sum of Rs.19,69,569/- under OD facility with further interest @ 12.5o/o p.a from 01.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶29

b) A sum of Rs,1,58,54,527/- under Term loan facility with interest @ 13.650lo^p.a from^07.07.2025 till^{the date of realization} ;

¶30

c) A sum of Rs.2,44,5L71- under GECL-I facility with interest @ 71.25o/o p.a from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶31

d) A sum of Rs.6,07,665/- under GECL-2 facility with interest @ .a from 0t.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶32

¶33

(oA.No.462l202s)

¶34

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realisation of the debt due.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant no.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17s day ot Feb,2026)

¶41

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFF!CER

¶42

1 7 FEr tat JRTJB coq
[)srt*

¶43

Canara Bank v. M/S Jai Ambye Power Looms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Jai Ambye Power Looms Industry

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

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sankatala Nagendra

Ms Young Stars and Little Stars Impressions and Another versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sri Chiluka Rakesh

Sa Khazem versus Aptus value housing finance India Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Thirumala Traders

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited