Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Charan Power Looms Industry

DRT7 Aug 2026OA/463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a large sum including principal and interest from a loan defaulting firm and its proprietor, rejecting claims of missing collateral or limitation bars.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,35,05,404/- with interest; order to proceed against secured assets and issue recovery certificate granted.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Charan Power Looms Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 7TH DAYOF AUGUST,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.463 ot²⁰²⁵

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Hanumakonda^{- II branch,} Hanumakonda^district, Telangana State' Represented^{bY its Chief Manager}

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Charan^{Powerlooms IndustrY,} A proprietorshiP^firm,

¶10

Represented bY its^ProPrietor Plot no.28, Sy.No.^{179ll,Textilepark,} Madikonda, KaziPet,

¶11

Warangal - 506^L42.

¶12

Sri Kummari^{KuntlaRajaiah,} s/o Sri Narsinga^{Rao,aged major,} occ: business,^H.No.2-8511, Machapur village,^{GovindaraoPet} Mandal, Mulugu district

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the^Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant -,ffi* Sri T. Nagender Defendants /.6::;^" 'dl;.'1S.i^{V. Ravinder} orders reserved ofl,4g'^{gj5 :'13{-.07.2026} ti.oe.zozo Uploaded in websltf,on : ^ -07.08.2026 t*forryry

¶16

(oA.No.a531202s)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,35,05,404l- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Five Thousand Four hundred and four only)

¶19

i.€.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.1,78,41 ,217/- under term loan with further interest @ 13.650lo^p.a with monthly rests from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.19,76,666/- for OD limit with further interest @ 12.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from 01.07.2025 till the date of rea lization ;

¶22

c) A sum of Rs.4,08,29L/- for GECL-1 facility with further interest @ 11.25olo^p.a with monthly rests from 0I.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶23

d) A sum ot Rs.32,79,230/-for GECL-2 limit with further interest @ lL.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from Ol.O7.2O2S till the date of realization;

¶24

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

¶25

e averments in the application, the Applicant Bank

¶26

.d,} ,' lr. stateg^rthat dant No.1 which is a proprietorship firm .&preAbiteiibv prietor/ defendant no,2 availed term loan facility .31 lakhs, cash credit facility of Rs.15.00 lakhs,

¶27

(oA.No.463/202s)

¶28

short term loan of Rs.5.00^{lakhs under GECL and Rs.27.00 lakhs under} GECL^(1.0) facility and^{agreed to repay along with interest. The} defendants hypothecated^{the machinery as mentioned in schedule to} OA and executed supplementary^{hypothecation andpersonal} guarantee in favour of Applicant bank.^{The defendantsmortgaged} the schedule^{property and executednecessarydocumentsin favour} of applicant bank. It is^{submittedby the Applicantbank that the} Defendants availed the said^{loan facilities and failed to keep up the} repayment schedule, as such the^{accountwas classified as NPA.} Inspite of demands made by Applicant the^{defendantshave not} regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued^{demand notice} dated 06.11.2023, but the defendants did not come^forward to^repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2,35r05,404l- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Five

¶29

Thousand Four hundred and four only) with interest @13.650lo p.a, @ L2.50o/o p.a and @11.25olo p.a respectively from 01.07.2025 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶30

i :i'

¶31

The Defendants filed written statement admitting that they availed various loan facilities from the Applicant bank. The contention of the ''<'.-

¶32

..' defendar$$"i\at at the time of sanction of loan, the applicant^bank obtained sig of defendants on various blank^papers and they are misused by applicant bank. The further contention of the defendants ir,Ur#fur"n though there is no requirement of obtaining

¶33

(oA.No.463/202s)

¶34

collateral security,^{the applicant bank obtained equitable mortgage of} schedule^property and that^{the claimof the applicant bank is barred} by limitation,^{Hence prayedfor dismissalof OA'}

¶35

I have^{perusedthe documents placed on record.}

¶36

Heard the arguments.

¶37

Mr, D. Srinivas,^{SeniorManager} /^{AW.1 is examinedon behalf of the} Applicant. Exhibits^A.1 to^{A.33 are marked through AW.1.Defendant} No.2 examined himself^{as DW.1 but no documentsare exhibited by} him.

¶38

Now, the^points that^{arise for consideration are:}

¶39

i) Whether the Applicant^{Bank has provedits claim as made in OA} against the defendants^?

¶40

ii) To what relief^?

¶41

Point No.i):

¶42

On behalf of the applicant bank, Shri^{D. Srinivas, Chief Manager who} is exaE) AW.1 deposed clearly^{about the liability of the} defenda lso about the execution^{of various documentsfiled by} the applicant k, AW.1 is not cross^{examinedby the defendants.} So the evi 'of AW.1 is not challenged by the defendants' So the

¶43

(oA. No.463/202s)

¶44

evidence of AW.1 stood unrebutted by the defendants. Even though defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is no way helpful to the defendants for establishing the contentions raised by the defendants.

¶45

A perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. So the contention of the defendants that the applicant bank obtained their signatures on blank documents is not tenable, The contention of defendants that there is no necessity of obtaining collateral security by the applicant is also not tenable as no material is placed by the defendants for establishing that for various loan facilities availed by the defendants, collateral security is not required. The other contention of defendants is that the claim made by Applicant bank in OA is barred by limitation. But in view of the fact that defendants 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 t the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. ei nt bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from ts. * n 7 f!![

¶46

(oA.No.463/202s)

¶47

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶48

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,35,O5,4041- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Five Thousand Four hundred and four only) i.€,,

¶49

a) A sum of Rs.1,78,4L,217/- under term loan with further interest @ 13.650lo p.a from 07.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶50

b) A sum of Rs.19,76,666/- for OD limit with further interest @ L2.SOo/o p.a from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶51

c) A sum of Rs.4,08,29L/- for GECL-I facility with further interest @ 11.25olo p.a from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶52

d) A sum of Rs.32,79,230/-for GECL-2 limit with further interest @ 11.25olo p.a from 0t.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶53

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

¶54

,d:,#*fi#i is also entitled to proceed against the person and propeifrts or o. nt No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 towards :+ i',,\ l: realization oF'the €k due. i.: . "l!.ll->,4

¶55

(oA.No.463/202s)

¶56

The Applicant Bank is entitled^{to the costs of the OA.}

¶57

L2, The Applicant shall file a cost^{memowithin two weeks from the date} of receipt of order,

¶58

Issue Recovery certificate^accordingly.

¶59

L4. Communicate a copy of the^{order to the parties concerned.}

¶60

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected,^{signedand pronouncedby mein the opencourton} this the 7thiay.qll.lg.--2026)

¶61

sdl-

¶62

*
ctJlb .l-.
Q.
^5st'

¶63

(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

Canara Bank v. M/S. Charan Power Looms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Charan Power Looms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debbati Satish versus Shriram Finance Limited

Jadi Sugendar versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Maharshi Generics and Surgicals

Icici Bank Limited versus kalyani

Canara Bank versus Nithya Powerloom Industry