Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shushma Powerlooms Industry

DRT21 Jan 2026OA/537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank against Shushma Powerlooms Industry for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 1,71,23,426.13 along with future interest and costs, confirming the bank's entitlement to proceed against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,71,23,426.13 with future interest and costs from the defendant; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property and defendant's person and properties; issuance of Recovery Certific

Canara Bank versus Shushma Powerlooms Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 21St DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT: sRt cuMMADt coplcHAND, pREStDtNG oFFtcER

¶2

OA. No. 532 OF zOZs

¶3

Between :

¶4

Canara Bank, Hanamkonda - ll Branch, Warangal - S0O 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Shushma Powerlooms tndustry, Plot No. 71, Survey No. 1Zg1t1, Kakatiya Textile^park, Madikonda, Kazipet, Warangal Urban, Telangana - 500 142. Rep.by its Proprietor, Smt. Amudala Sushma, Wo. Omkar, Aged abpout 35 years

¶8

¶9

R/o. H.No.1-14, Machapur, Warangal - 506 344

Defendant

Z 1

(oA. No. s37l202s)

Counsel for the parties :

¶14

For The Applicant Sri. B. N Swamiji For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 20.01.2026 Pronounced on 21.01.2026 Upload in website on 22.01.2026

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank fited the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,71,23,426.13 ps. (Rupees One Crores Seventy One Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Six and Paise Thirteen Only) i.e a sum of-

¶17

(i) Rs.l,49,43,617.00 ps. being the Term loan account with future interest @ 10.20% p.a with monthly rests and penal interest @2%p.a^from 07.09.2025 tiil the date of reatization.

¶18

Ps. being the OD/ OCC account with 10.20% p.a with monthly rests and penal from 07.09.2025 tiil the date of reatization.

¶19

2 1 JAil zlrffi

¶20

(oA. No. s37l202s)

¶21

(iii) Rs.83,696.00 ps. being the GECL account with future interest @ 8.8s% p.a with monthry rests and penar interest @2%p.a from 07.09.2025 til the date of realization.

¶22

and in default for sale of Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedule Propefi to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant is a proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Smt. Amudala Sushma availed Term Loan facility of Rs.98,31,000/- repayable in equated monthly installments of Rs.'1,53,701/- with interest @10.20o/o p.a compounded monthly and working capitar facirity of Rs.15.00 Lakhs with interest @10.20o/o^p.a compounded monthly and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 05.12.2019 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant created Equitable Mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to the OA and executed Agreement to mortgage dated 05.12.2019 and Registered Agreement dated 27.10.2017 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendant avaited GECL facitity of Rs.2.00 Lakhs and executed Common Hypothecation Agreement dated 08.07.2020 in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 29.10.2023 and issued Demand Notice 1 dated - 04.11vZW ,! ... and under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEST lrti^'ll 21Jlil2D$ "' ,: 3 t.^.l l, r" . :ⁱ ,i \ 'at...,,,. ,r,,r' ' "::_,.'

¶24

(oA. No. s37l202s)

¶25

4ct,2002 to the defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶26

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 20.01.2026.

¶27

Sri. B. Madhava Reddy, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶29

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

¶30

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.19. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶31

21rqu

¶32

(OA. No. s371202s)

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendant is riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a totar sum of Rs.1,71,23,426.13 ps. (Rupees One Crores Seventy One Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Six and Paise Thirteen Only) i.e a sum of _

¶35

(i) Rs.1,49,43,517.00 ps. being the Term loan account with future interesl @ 10.20o/o p.a from O7.O}.2O2S till the date of realization

¶36

(ii) Rs.20,96,113.13 ps. being the OD/ OCC account with future interest @ 10.2ooh p.a from 07.09.2025 tiil the date of realization.

¶37

(iii) Rs.83,596.00 ps. being the GECL account with future interest @ 8.85% p.a from 07.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶38

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

¶39

2t JAil^2t126

¶40

(OA. No. s37l202s)

¶41

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendant Firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated^to the p A, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day ot Jan, 2026)

¶47

sd/(G. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

TFUE 9OPY- -
t'! s%fr'
DRT-T, HYDERABAD.

Canara Bank v. Shushma Powerlooms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shushma Powerlooms Industry

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

Sri Engineers versus Idbi Bank

Maryada Vinutha Devi versus Union Bank of India

Karumanchi Bhavani versus Can Fin Homes Limited

Ms Sanabil Enterprises versus Central Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Manikanta Power Looms Industry

Canara Bank versus M/S. Eshwara Power Looms Industry and Others