Allowed

Canara Bank v. Padmavathi Powerlooms Industry

DRT21 Jan 2026OA/538/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order by the DRT allowed the bank's OA for recovery of a default term loan, GECL facility, and OD/OCC dues, totaling around Rs. 1.91 crore, along with future interest and a request for a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 1,91,00,966.50 plus future interest; directions to proceed against mortgaged and other properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate; costs to applicant.

Canara Bank versus Padmavathi Powerlooms Industry — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 213t DAY OF JANUARY,2O26 PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 538 OF 2O2S

¶3

Between:

¶4

Canara Bank, Hanamkonda - ll Branch, Warangal - 506 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Padmavathi Powerlooms lndustry, Plot No. 85, Survey No. 1791/1, Kakatiya Textile Park, Madikonda, Kazipet, Warangal Urban, Telangana -506142. Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. Nalla Rajyalaxmi, Wo. Ramesh, Aged about 50 years OR R/o. H.No. 10-6-67, Girmajipet, Bodrai, Warangal, Telangana - Defendant

¶8

(oA. No. s38/202s)

¶9

Counsel for the parties :

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,91,00,966.50 ps. (Rupees One Crores Ninety One Lakhs Eight Hundred Sixty Six and Paise Fifty Only) i.e a sum of _

¶13

(i) Rs.{,61,25,352.55 Ps. being the Term loan account with future interesr @ 11.s0% p.a with monthry rests and penar interest @2%p.a^from 07.09.2025 till the date of realization.

interest

21JAil

(oA. No. s38/202s)

(iii) Rs.l,51,787.55 ps. being the GECL account with future interest @ 8.85% p.a with monthly rests and penal interest @2%p.a^from 07.0g.2025 till the date of realization.

¶18

(iv) Rs.8,57,747.36 ps. being the GECL _ I account w*h future interest @ 8.85% p.a with monthry rests and penar interest @2o/op.a^from 07.09.2025 till the date of realization.

¶19

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

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant is a proprietorship Firm represented by its Proprietor Smt. Nalla Rajyalaxmi availed Term Loan facility of Rs.98,31,000/- repayable in equated monthly installments of Rs.1,59,210l- with interest @11.40% p.a compounded monthly and working capitar facirity of Rs.15.00 Lakhs with interest @10.40o/o^p.a compounded monthly and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 27.0g.201g 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 27.0g.2019 and Registered Agreement dated 27.10.201T in favor of the Applicant Bank. The defendant avaited GECL facitity of Rs.2 50 Lakhs and executed Common Hypothecation Agreement datg( .03.O7.2020 in {avor of the Appticant Bank. The dei'endants availed GECL ll-.0 extension loan facility of Rs.7.00 ,.1 2 1 ,J[ft 2026^'3 i^r'- .... :. .;. ,, t j .'-.-..,

¶21

(OA. No. s3s/202s)

¶22

Lakhs and executed Supplemental Common Hypothecation Agreement dated 11.11.2021 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 29j02023 and issued Demand Notice dated 04.11.2023 and under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 to the defendant. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

¶24

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 20.01.2026.

¶25

¶26

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.25.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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?

¶29

¶30

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW..t, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.25. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has

¶31

(oA. No. s38/202s)

¶32

established their claim 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.

¶33

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

¶34

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,91,00,866.50 Ps. (Rupees One Crores Ninety One Lakhs Eight Hundred Sixty Six and paise Fifty Only) i.e a sum of -

¶35

(i) Rs.1,61,25,352.SS ps. being the Term loan account with future interest @ 11.50% p.a from O7.O1.2O2S tiil the date of realization.

¶36

(ii) Rs.19,65,979.04 Ps. being the OD/ OCC account with future interesl @ 10.10% p.a from 07.09.2025 tiil the date of realization.

¶37

(iii) Rs.1,51,787.55 Ps. being the GECL account with future interest @ 8.85% p.a from 07.09.2025 titt the date of rea lization.

¶38

(iv) Rs.8,57,747.36 ps. being the GECL - | account with future interest @.8.859/o p.a from 07.09.2025 till the date of ",,., . I .' ,realization. i

¶39

(oA. No. s38/202s)

¶40

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged

¶41

Property as mentioned in the Schedule of Property to the OA

¶42

towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

(Dictated-to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21sr day ot Jan,2026)

¶49

2 1 JAll 2t26
6

¶50

sd/-
(G. coPrcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ntrrffiV;',
DRI.I, HYDERAE!.D.

Canara Bank v. Padmavathi Powerlooms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Padmavathi 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