Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Ps Textiles

DRT12 Aug 2026OA/483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application, Canara Bank sought recovery of Rs.2,08,51,055.76 from M/s. P.S. Textiles and a proprietorship firm against whom no documents were cross-examined. The tribunal allowed the application, upholding the bank's claim while dismissing respondents' contentions regarding blank documents and limitation.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs.2,08,51,055.76 with interest; allowing bank to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties; issue recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus Ms Ps Textiles — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST,2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.483 of 2025

Between:

Canara Bank,

Branch office at Main branch, 8-4-4, Krishna colony, station road,

¶8

Warangal - 506 002.

¶9

Telangana State.

¶10

Represented by its Manager

¶11

Applicant

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

M/s. P.S. Textiles, A proprietorship firm,

¶14

Represented by its Proprietor Sri Pinmulla Sridevi, Plot no.107, Sy.No.1791l1, Textile park, Madikonda (Village),

¶15

Kazipet, Warangal - 506 L42.

¶16

Mrs. Pinulla Sridevi, D/o Rajamouli Pinumalla, Aged major, occ: business, Plot no.105, D.No.19/20-1, Mahaprabhunagar, Limbayat Surat city, Udha, Gujarat - 394

¶17

Also at

¶18

H.No.16-5-307, Perukawada 2, Warangal - 506 002.

¶19

Telangana State

¶20

1?ruCzm a nts

¶21

Counsel for the Parties:

¶22

For the Applicant M/s. M.V. Kini Defendants Sri V. Ravinder Orders reserved on 11.08.2026

¶23

(oA.No.483/202s)

¶24

Pronounced on t2.08.2026 Uploaded in website on L2.08.2026

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA against Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,08,51,055.76ps^{(Rupees Two} Crores Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand^{Fifty Five and paise} seventy Six only) i.e.,

¶27

a) A sum of Rs.1,56,12,680.31ps under term^{loan with interest@} 10.00o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till^{the date of realization;}

¶28

b) A sum of Rs.5,52,656.06ps^{for GECL 1.0 with interest@ 8.85o/o} p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶29

c) A sum of Rs.24,31,435.60ps for GECL^{1.0 extension with} interest @ 8.85o/o^p.a from date of application^{till the date of} realization;

¶30

d) A sum of Rs.22,54,283.79ps^{underOCC limit with interest@} 10.35olo^p.a from date of application till^{the date} of^realization; and in default for sale of hypothecated^{movables and mortgaged} property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶31

As per the averments in the application, the^{ApplicantBank} states.,ihdl;itsioqEgiiqnt ruo.t which is a^{proprietorship firm} ,"0.",#"0 o;i&."; defendant no.2 availed term^{loan facility}

¶32

for a sum Qr $s9flf,.!ffflatn*t ECL 1.0 facility for Rs.B.50 lakhs, GECL 1.0 s and OCC limit of Rs.35.00 lakhs and

¶33

(oA. No.a83l202s)

¶34

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 the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, so the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated t7.07.2025, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.2,08,51,055.76ps (Rupees Two Crores Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Fifty Five and paise seventy Six only) with interest @10% p.a, @ 8.85o/o p.a and @10.35olo^p.a respectively from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶35

The Defendants filed written statement admitting that they availed various loan facilities from the Applicant bank. The contention of the defendants is that at the time of sanction of loan, the applicant bank ants on various blank papers and they

¶36

are mi defend

¶37

coilater! &.$;,r; r$fu Jr"J "'.Ji1,1"6"rink .*":.fr1 obtained equitabre mortsase of 3 ffi,,, ,r5;;;;,:1ir'i,.'"

¶38

(oA.No.483/2025)

¶39

schedule^property and that the claim of the applicant bank is barred by limitation. Hence^prayedfor dismissal of OA.

¶40

I have^perused the documents^{placed on record.}

¶41

Heard the arguments.

¶42

Mrs. V. Anusha, Branch^Manager /^{AW.1 is examined on behalf of the} Applicant. Exhibits A. 1 to A.32 are^{marked through AW.1. Defendant} No.2 examined herself as DW.1 and^{not filed any documents.}

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

ii) To what relief ?

¶46

Point No.i):

¶47

On behalf of the applicant bank, Mrs. V.^{Anusha, Branch Manager who} is examined as AW.1 deposed clearly about the^liability of^the defendants and also about the execution^{of various documentsfiled by} the applicant bank, AW.1 is not cross examined^{by the defendants.} ; ;l-.tj

¶48

So the eviderice-lof AWi.1 i$.not challenged by^the defendants.^{So the} by the defendants. Even though

¶49

as DW. 1, his evidence is no^waY

¶50

:-:.:..;7.'

¶51

(oA. No.483/202s)

¶52

helpful to the defendants for establishing the contentions raised by the defendants.

¶53

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 of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants.

¶54

¶55

riginal application is allowed with costs as

¶56

(OA. No.483/202s)

¶57

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to^{Applicant Bank} a total sum of Rs.2,O8,51,055.76ps^(Rupees Two Crores^Eight

¶58

Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Fifty Five and^paise seventy^Six only)

¶59

i.€.,

¶60

a)A sum of Rs.1,56,12,680.31ps under term loan with^interest @ 10.00o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶61

b)A sum of Rs.5,52,656.06ps for GECL 1.0 with^interest @ 8.85o/o

¶62

p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶63

c) A sum of Rs.24,3L,435.60ps for GECL 1.0 extension^with interest @ 8.85o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶64

d) A sum of Rs.22,54,283.79ps under OCC limit with interest @ 10.35o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶65

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.

¶66

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the^person and

¶67

properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 towards

¶68

to the costs of the OA.

¶69

(OA.No.a83l2025)

¶70

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶71

of receipt of order.

¶72

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶73

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶74

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of Aug, 2026)

¶75

sdl-

¶76

(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶77

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶78

.r%<br>E l2IuEem *
ri
t? d. -ri
-',,
\t'-,,:w

¶79

IRUE gpPY nv
tlt^2,!ffi

¶80

ORT.I,^,,YOERABr''3

Canara Bank v. Ms Ps Textiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Ps Textiles

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

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Yerukali Chendramma

City Union Bank Limited versus Harikrishna Agencies

Canara Bank versus M/S. Hymavathi Textiles

Canara Bank versus Revanth Textiles

Mr Avv Narayana and another versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Krishna Filling Station