Allowed

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

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/575/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Origin Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs.1.97 cr+ including term loans, OD, and GECL facilities with interest from 01.07.2025. The court held the bank established its claim under NPA classification due to default.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,97,63,641/- with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated property and Defendant 2's property; Recovery Certificate issue

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THrS THE 17rH DAY OF^{FEBRUARY,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.575 ol2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Canara Bank(E-Syndicate bank), Hanamkonda-II branch, Hanamakonda district, Warangal - 506 001. TS Represented by its chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Keerthana Power Looms Industry, Represented by its^proPrietor, Plot no.145, survey No.1791l1, Textile park, Madikonda village Kazipet mandal, Warangal Urban, Telangana - 506^142.

¶10

Sri Komuravelli Kiran^Kumar, S/o Sri Sharaiah, aged^major, Occ: business, H.No.12-2-149, Pinnivari street, Venkateswara Swami Temple, Warangal - 506 002.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant Sri Dishit Bhattachariee For the Defendants Exparte ..^. 1:t::. Reserved on )-'.^- 1. tt.02.2026 :t; '. -, ' Pronounced on^i/,? L7.02.2026 , ; Uoloaded in webste on "^'1 7.02.2026 .-l_1^1l FEB ?Mi *ii

¶14

(oA. No.s7sl202s)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

L. The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,97,63,641/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Seven Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Forty one only) i.e.,

¶17

a) A sum of Rs.1,65,45,672/- under term loan with interest @ 13.650lo p.a with monthly rests from 01.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.18,91,5t7/- under OD facility with interest @ 12.5olo p.awith monthly rests from 01.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶19

c) A sum of Rs.3,53,840/- under GECL-I facility with interest @ ll.25o/o p,a with monthly rests from 01.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶20

d) A sum of Rs.9,72,612/- under GECL-2 facility with interest @ LL.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from 0L.07.2025 till the date of realization;

¶21

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and moftgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a^{proprietorship} firm represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 credit loan facility of Rs.15.00 lakhs and term loan - against hypothecation of Plant and book debts. To secure the loan

¶23

(oA.No.s7sl202s)

¶24

facilities, defendant no.1 deposited their title deeds with intention to create equitable mortgage of immovable property as mentioned in the schedule to OA. Again the defendants availed short term loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs to provide liquidity support to defendant no.1 firm and agreed to repay the same in 48 months with a moratorium period of 12 months from date of disbursement. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and demand notice was issued on 06.tL.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstandlng. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants called absent and set exparte on tL.02.2026.

¶26

Sri D. Srinivas, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.26.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

To substantiate the case of the the Applicant Bank was examined and as Ex.A1 to 4.26. In view of the

¶30

(oA.No.575 /202s1

¶31

above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established^{their claim made} in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant^Bankis entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future^{interest and} costs.

¶32

In the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,97,63,6411-^(Rupees One Crore Ninety Seven Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Forty^one only) i.e.,

¶33

a) A sum of Rs.t,65,45,672/- under term loan with interest @ 13.65% p.a from 0t.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶34

b) A sum of Rs.LB,9L,5L7/- under OD facility with interest @ t2.5o/o p.a from 01.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶35

c) A sum of Rs.3,53,840/- under GECL-1 facility with interest @ LL.25o/o^p.a from 0t.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶36

d) A sum of Rs.9,72,6t21- under GECL-2 facility with^interest @ Lt.25o/o p.a from 0t.07.2025 till the date of realization ;

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the^hypothecated movables and mortgaged^property as mentioned in the schedule to OA

¶38

(oA.No.s7sl202s)

¶39

10, The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^{proceed against the personand} properties of defendant no.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of^{the OA.}

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to^{the parties concerned.}

¶44

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by^mein the^opencourton this the 176 day of Feb, 2026)

¶45

sd/-

¶46

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

dfYtW

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Keerthana 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 Sri. Sankatala Nagendra

Ms Young Stars and Little Stars Impressions and Another versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sri Chiluka Rakesh

Sa Khazem versus Aptus value housing finance India Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Thirumala Traders

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited