Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S.Padmavathi Power Looms Industry

DRT16 Mar 2026OA/574/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's Original Application for recovery of over Rs. 261 crores term loans, OD, GECL, and other facilities against a lending firm and its proprietor, while abating the claim against the deceased proprietor.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; Defendants liable to pay Rs.2,61,90,432 with interest; Recovery certificate issued against firm; Claim against deceased abated; Hypothecated properties and firm property attachable.

Canara Bank versus M/S.Padmavathi Power Looms Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.574 ot 2O2S

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank, Hanamkonda-2 branch, Hanamkonda district, TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s, Padmavathi^power Looms Industry,

¶10

A Proprietorship firm, Represented by its proprietor Plot no.t47, survey no.tTgt/L, Textile park, Madikonda,

¶11

Warangal - 506 142. TS.

¶12

Sri Pinninti Rama Rao,(Expired) s/o Sri Venkat Rao, aged major, occ: business, H.No.4-2Ot/2/1,^pakala road, Narsampet village and mandal, Warangal - 506 002.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicant :
Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee
Forthe Defendants,,,,1t ;lji,,.. Exparte
"\
Reserved on * 11.03.2026
Pronounced on : * t6.03.2026
uproaded in w e rJ9rrs bsite JnE .,| I illB r"t26 :, ; 17.03.2026
i-! ',..JP^d. "f 8l+
\Q;'*SP

¶16

(oA. No.s7al202s)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,61,9O,432l_ (Rupees Two Crores Sixty One Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Two only) i.e.,

¶19

A) a sum of Rs.2,02,03,879/- under term roan with further interest @ 1t.65o/o p.a with monthly rests from Ot.O7.2O2S till the date of realization;

¶20

B) a sum of Rs.19,61,090/- under OD facility with further interest @ 10.5% p.a with monthly rests from OL.O7.2O2S till the date of realization;

¶21

C) a sum of Rs.3,78,702/- under GECL-I facility with further interest @ 9.25olo^p.a with monthly rests from OL.O7.2O2S till the date of realization;

¶22

D) a sum of Rs.36,46,761l- with further interest @ 9.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization; and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant nor: ip firm represented by its proprietor/ . '#i'ji: '')rl'q';'*\

¶24

defendant ffi-.iBedt&U\dit facitity of Rs.15,00,000/- and term loa n faci I itv gr 5J. f-e, ^a1.oooa \ rn" defenda nts executed com posire , 1^{E u11 2925} -"li

i ..i l"

@*p#''

(oA. No.s74l202s)

hypothecation agreement, undertaking letter etc. The defendants hypothecated ail the movabres and created equitabre mortgage as mentioned in the schedures to oA in favour of Appricant bank and executed aI necessary documents. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank crassified the account as NpA and issued demand notice dated 06.Lt.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendant No.1 called absent and set exparte on 11.03.2026.

¶30

sri D. srinivas, Senior Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.37.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Defendant no.1 remained exparte. As no regar heirs on beharf of defendant no.2,jlgi4qie against defendant no.2 is abated. To subsrantiate .'.dfuB#qgticant Bank, AW.1, orricial or the Applicant Ban( was e#rineo Jfo\ exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.J7. 1n6rrE{0^j&[r" e, I hold that the Applicant Bank

¶35

(oA.No.s7al202s)

¶36

has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶37

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant No.1 is riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a totar sum of Rs.2r61r9t,4321- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty One Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Two only) i.e.,

¶38

A) a sum of Rs.2,02,03,879/- under term roan with further interest @ 11.650lo p.a from 01.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶39

B) a sum of Rs.19,61,090/- under OD facility with further interest @ 10.5olo^p.a from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶40

C) a sum of Rs.3,78,702/- under GECL-I facility with further interest @ 9.25o/o p.a from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶41

D) a sum of Rs.36,46,761l- with further interest @ 9.25o/o p.a from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization.

¶42

The claim against deceased defendant no.2 is abated.

¶43

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables perty as mentioned in the schedule to OA ...:.- 4*

¶44

towaros.6tiza due. , .6& 1 6 fiAR 2p6

¶45

(oA.No.s7al2025)

¶46

The Applicant Bank is also entiiled to proceed against the person and

¶47

properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

L2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶49

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

¶50

of receipt of order.

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of March, 2026)

¶54

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶55

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

f*
'l ,tP
*
15
rrfl
,,h4

¶57

trrw
t&,aq**,lar
nf-l lrYf'::^r^n

Canara Bank v. M/S.Padmavathi Power Looms Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S.Padmavathi Power Looms 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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Irish Aqua LLP

M/s.Vijaya Aero Blocks Private Ltd., and other versus Bank of Baroda

Vijay Aero Block versus Bank of Baroda

Godavari Polymers Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S.Surya Powerloom Industry

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Ganesh Agency