Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Mahender Powerlooms Industry

DRT9 Mar 2026OA/500/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of loan dues totaling Rs. 1.64 crore from a proprietorship firm and its sole proprietor, granting measure of relief to recover the debt and related interest. 8.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed in favor of Applicant Bank; Defendants directed to pay Rs. 1.64 crore plus future interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Mahender Powerlooms Industry — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 9rH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.SOO of 2O2S

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Hanamakonda branch, Warangal, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Mahender^powerlooms Industry, Represented by its^proprietor Kodam Mahendar R/o plot no.45, Sy.no.t79t / l, Madikonda,

¶10

Kazipet, Warangal, TS - 506 236.

¶11

1. Sri Kodam Mahender, S/o Kodam Gadhiya, R/o 740, Aavirbhav society-I, Pandesara Surat City, Gujarat - 394 221.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the^parties:

¶14

For the Applicant
Sri G. Krishna Chaitanya
For the Defendants
Reserved on
03.2026
Pronounced on
Uploaded in website .2026

¶15

(oA. No.s00/202s)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,64,15,529.94ps (Rupees One crore sixty Four Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Eight and paise Ninety four only) (Rs.L,37,44,601.23 in term loan account + Rs.1,59,220.74 in GECL_I account + Rs.6,o2,3gg.54ps in GECL-II account + t9,Lo,3o7.43ps in oD account) with future interest @ r20/o^p.a with monthry rests arong with penar interest from date of filing of oA tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant 1 is a^{proprietorship} firm represented by sole proprietor/ defendant no.2 avaired term roan facirity of Rs.98.31 rakhs, cash credit Rs.15.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 10.01.2020. Further the defendants avaired GECL roan facirity of Rs.2,00 rakhs on og.o7.2o2o and Rs.5 lakhs as GECL 1.0 extension on 21.03.2022. The defendants hypothecated the movables and mortgaged the schedule property in favour of Applicant bank. After availing the loan facilities, the defenda the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank NPA on 29.t0.2023 and issued demand I !I B9 *, ,r,

¶19

(oA.No.s00/202s)

¶20

notice dated 04.7t.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 05.03.2026.

¶22

Sri D, Srinivas, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶23

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶25

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶26

prayed for?

¶27

7' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. 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 entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶28

B, $e^{present OA is allowed with} costs, as under: iointty and severally tiabte to pay to the Appticant i$fhe Tffnoi\ike :ld v ., : fr?-rifr"fifumBli Rs'1,64,1s's28.s4ps (Rupees one crore sixty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Eight and

,fl

(oA.No.s00/202s)

paise Ninety four only) (Rs.L,37,44,601.23 in term loan account + Rs.1,58,220.74 in GECL-I account + Rs.6,02,399.54ps in GECL_II account + 79,10,307.43ps in OD account) with future interest @ l2o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶33

The Appricant Bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated movabres and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedure to OA towards realisation of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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 9th day of March, March, 2026)

¶41

this the 9th day of March, March,
5\ e'PN

¶42

sd/-
* (G. GOPTCHAND)
0I r,rAR 2026 PRESIDING OFFICER
't,1*ornruroS
€.;riirltrt, 4

Canara Bank v. M/S. Mahender Powerlooms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Mahender Powerlooms 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

Vonturu Srinivasa Rao versus Hdfc Bank

Kamepalli Padmavathi versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Bhaskar Illuri

Fine Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. a K Metal Mart

Nanditha Granites Rep by Tallam Sridevi versus Canara Bank