DRT allowed bank's application for recovery of ₹1.92 Crprincipal and interest on term loan, OD, GECL, and GECL-1.0, without reliance on any statutory provision within text.
Recovery of ₹1.92 Crprincipal plus interest; right to realize debt from hypothecated movables and mortgaged property; cost to applicant; recovery certificate issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
OA.No.563 ot 2025
Between;
Canara Bank,
Hanumakonda - II branch, 2-5-39, water tank road,
Near Naveena Children hospital, Nakkalagutta, Hanumakonda, Warangal district - 506 001. Telangana State.
Represented by its Chief Manager
Applicant
VERSUS
Defendants
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicanthe ApplicanApplican
For the Applicanthe ApplicanApplican Sri Gampa Rangaiah Defendants Sri V. Ravinder Orders 3t.07.2026 Pronounced $lru0il6 .; 07.08.2026 +'.$, Uploaded in 07.08,2026 &t'*;,#
(oA. No.s63/202s)
ORDER
and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged
(oA.No.s63/202s)
loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs under GECL and Rs.7.50 lakhs under GECL (1.0) facility and 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 Appricant bank. The defendants mortgaged the schedure property and executed necessary documents in favour of applicant bank' It is submitted by the Appricant 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 demand notice dated 06.Lt.2023, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.1r92r14r954.llps (Rupees One Crore Ninety Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four and paise Eteven only) with interest @10,650lo p,a, @ lt.45o/o p.a and @13.75% p.a respectively from 01.09.2025 till the date of realization, Hence the oA.
. "-:.+$l'Li$'idan]tpirities from the Appricant bank. The contention oF the ',:: "{\f-:o \ , defendants isth\ .lr at the time of sanction of loan, the applicant bank obtainbd ilfonatqr$s of defendants on various btank papers and they are misused byitrre applicant bank. The further contention of the
(oA.No.s63/202s)
defendants is that even though there is no requirement of obtaining collaterar security, the appricant bank obtained equitable mortgage of schedule property and that the claim of the applicant bank is barred by limitation. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.
ii) To what relief ?
point No.i):
(oA.No.s63/202s)
So the evidence of AW.1 is not challenged by the defendants. So the evidence of AW.1 stood unrebutted by the defendants. Even though defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is no way herpfur to the deFendants for estabrishing the contentions raised by the defendants.
A perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes crear that a, the rerevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normar course of transaction. so the contention of the defendants that the appricant bank obtained their signatures on blank documents is not tenabre. 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 roan facirities avaired by the defendants, collaterar security is not required. The other contention of defendants is that the claim made by Applicant bank in oA is barred by rimitation. But in view of the fact that defendants executed acknowredgement letter by acknowredging their riabirity and as the said documents are executed within 3 years from the date of filing of OA, the claim of the p=?3"k is within time. considering allthe circumstances, I am iffift"tiiih.th" defense taken by the defendants is not tenabte. t; .t d... HencH"the appricant bank is entired to craim the oA amount from
l9efendants.
Point No.ii)
5
(oA.No.s63/202s)
The Defendants are jointry and severary riabre to pay to Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,92,14,954.11ps (Rupees One Crore Ninety Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four and paise Eleven only) i.e.,
OA towards realization of the debt due.
6
(oA.No.sG3/202s)
(Dictated to the p'A , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of Aug, 2026)
sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank has proved its claim against the defendants?
What relief is appropriate?
Canara Bank
M/s. Nithya Powerlooms Industry
Sri Balabadra Ramu
Gummadi Gopicchand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
