Allowed

Canara Bank v. Podila Ramesh

DRT6 Jan 2026OA/519/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a loan of Rs. 38,11,922 plus interest against borrowers who remained ex-parte. The court enforced a power of sale under the SARFAESI Act. The bank was directed to issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 38,11,922 with interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal property; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus Podila Ramesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ IAT HYDERABAD DATED TH]S THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI cUMMAD| cOptCHAND, PREStDtNG OFFTCER

¶3

OA. No. 519 OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Canara Bank, Wattimarthy branch, H.No. 5-S, Main road, Wattimarthy - SOB 254, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana. Represented by its Senior Manager and Authorized Officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri. Podila Ramesh,

¶9

S/o. Late Sri^podila Narayan,( Male), Age Major, OCC _ Business,

¶10

H.No.'t-4-249 t1O1 tC, Bataji Nagar, Near Veerabhadraswamy Temple, Kuda, Kuda Road,

¶11

Suryapet- 508 213,

¶12

Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶13

Also at -

¶14

Plot No. 27, Kudakuda Revenue Village, GMR Township, Chivemla Mandal, Suryapet Municipality, j,. Suryapet - 508 213, Suryapet District, Telangana. 6 JAil Ztrl[

¶15

(oA. No.579l2o2s)

¶16

Smt. Boddu Himasree, Wo. Sri.^podila Ramesh (Female), Age Major, OCC - Business, H.No. 1-4-249t101tC, Balaji Nagar, Near Veerabhadraswamy Temple, Kuda, Kuda Road, Suryapet - 508 213, Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶17

Also at -

¶18

Plot No. 27, Kudakuda Revenue Viltage, GMR Township, Chivemla Mandat, Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet - 508 213, Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶19

Also at -

¶20

Junior assistant, O/o Commercial Tax officer, Near Gandhi Statue, Suryapet - 508 213, Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

(oA. No. st91202s)

¶23

Counsel for the parties :

¶24

For The Applicant Smt. A. NandiniReddy For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 05.01.2026 Pronounced on 06.01.2026 Upload in website on 06.01.2026

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶27

recovery of a total sum of Rs.3g,11,922.00 ps. (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two Only) with future interest @ g.7ilo/o p.a with monthly rests

¶28

and penal interest @2% from 1g.Og.2O2S til the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedule of property A and B to OA

¶29

¶30

application, the Applicant Bank states 2 availed Term Loan facility of 354 equated monthly installments of Rs.31 Housing Loan Agreement dated nt Bank. The Defendants No. .l morefully mentioned in [ 6 JAr,t zC?E

¶31

(oA. No. st9/202s)

¶32

schedure of property to oA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Tifle Deeds dated 22.09.202g in favor of the Appricant Bank and deposited the sare deeds in favor of the Appricant Bank. After avairing the roan facitity, the defendants failed to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank classified the account as NpA on 11.or.2o2s and issued Legar notice dated 2g.10.2024 and 02.05.2025 to the defendants and Demand Notice dated 1g.07.2025 under section 13(2)of the SARFAES! Act, 2oo2 to the Defendants . The appricant Bank arso initiated SARFAEST Action and issued various notices to the Defendants. tnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶33

Defendants cailed absent and set exparte on 05.01 .2026.

¶34

smt. Gunturu chaitanya, senior Manager and Authorized officer of the Appricant Bank examined herserf as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A.14.

¶35

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶36

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entifled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

(OA. No. 519/202s)

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to 4.14. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶41

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶42

The Defendants No. 1 and 2 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3g,11,922.00 ps. (Rupees Thifi Eight Lakhs Eteven Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two Only) with future interest @ g.7S% p.a from 19.09.2025 tillthe date of realization.

¶43

¶44

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in the Schedule of the Property A to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

¶46

also entitled to proceed against the defendants No. I and 2 towards

¶47

(oA. No. st9/202s)

¶48

That Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the oA.

¶49

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶50

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶51

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P'A" transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6h day of Jan,2026)

¶53

sd/-
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

; u6rnnffir :
#1
:l ;

¶55

:Wffi,
Ar;t'
[1Ft",tr

Canara Bank v. Podila Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Podila Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Reddy Manda versus Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.

Sri Jagadamba Pharma versus State Bank of India

Hari Om Traders versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Putta Sudhakar

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sadhu Venkat Reddy

Bank of India versus Sri. Gujjala Pullaiah