Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Narmada Powerloom Industry

DRT13 Mar 2026OA/60/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Originating Application filed by Canara Bank against three respondents for recovery of a loan of Rs. 2,05,35,792.72 with future interest and costs, holding the claim established on evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,05,35,792.72 with future interest at 11.65 p.a. Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and sue on properties of defendants for recover

Canara Bank versus M/S. Narmada Powerloom Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13rH DAy OF MARCil 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.6O of 2026

Between:

Canara Bank,

Hanamkonda-II branch, H.No.2-5-39, Water Tank road, Near Naveena Childrens Hospital, Nakkalgutta, Hana mkonda, Warangal district - 506 001, TS Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Narmada Powerloom Industry, Prop. Sampelli Narmadha, W/o Srinivas Rao, Hindu, aged About 32 years, occ: business, Plot no.324, Survey no.L79l/L, Kakatiya Textile park, Madikonda Village, Kazipet mandal, Warangal urban district.

¶11

Sri Sampelli Srinivasa Rao, Guarantor, Hindu, aged about 34 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.5-99, Pasra, Govindraopet, Warangal - 506 347.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

For the Applicant Sri T. Sasi Kumar
''7!i!''::'"' ''. ''
Reserved on frarl-'l'i 1,,: : 12.03.2026
Pronounced ,|',1c,/ " c&l 1,,"I' "', i : L3.03.2026
t/ @ #ir+, -i '.;;:,
Uploaded in /gsite on :*# t3.03.2026
:li lXfiAn?0?6 ;i
,- ,, I
,_,$2
;1,}}*zu.r,,r;,.4f,t,"
'"*ifiroJi,;:-t'"

¶15

(oA.60 of 2026)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,O5,gSJgZ.l2ps (Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two and paise Seventy Two only) with future interest @ tt.65o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendants availed cash credit of Rs.15 lakhs and term loan of Rs.86.99 lakhs. The defendants executed the security documents and created equitable mortgage over the schedule property by deposit of title deeds in favour of applicant bank. The borrower executed deed of agreement to mortgage on 27.06.20L9 and availed loan of Rs.1,13,31,000/- for acquisition of plot and construction purpose. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 27.L0.2023 and issued demand notice dated 04.11.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear !,fpr:outStanding:^{Hencethis OA.} .."1 " {iA .",^,''Jiii tr';"i ,0.;^,:r,.- \tti . S;^.{DefenOdifs cattebfabsent and set exparte on 12.03 .2020. i, J ilAR ztrzn j,l' : t ,,t '!1 !"v 1., /^i' " '''.,. '., .'1.r,rrrfit*;-,,n*,I"",

¶19

(0A.60 of 2025)

¶20

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.24.

¶21

Heard the^{Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank'}

¶22

The^point that^{arise for consideration is whetherthe Applicant Bank is} entitled for the^{claim made in the OA against the Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶23

Defendants remained^{exparte.To substantiatethe case of the} Applicant Bank,^{AW.1, official of the Applicant Bankwas examinedand} he exhibited relevant^{documentsas Ex.A1 to A.24. In view of the} above, I hold^{that the Applicant Bank has establishedtheir 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.

¶24

In the result,^{the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:} The Defendants^{are jointlyand severally liable to pay to the Applicant} Bank a total sum^{of Rs.2rO5,35,792.72ps(Rupees Two crores} Five Lakhs Thirty^{Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two}

¶25

_srcventy Two only) with^{future interest @ 11.650loF.a}

¶26

f,?

t3 IIIAR M "k
F.4
f- AFr?,

¶27

(oA.60 of 2026)

¶28

entitled to^{proceed against the mortgaged}

¶29

1. The ApPlicant^{Bank is} in the schedule^{to OA towards realisationof}

¶30

property as mentioned the debt due.

¶31

lo.TheApplicantBankisalsoentitledtoproceedagainstthepersonand properties of defendants^{towards realization of the debt due'}

¶32

The^{ApplicantBank is entitledto the costs of the oA'}

¶33

L2. The Applicant^{shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date} of receiPt^{of order.}

¶34

Issue^{Recovery certificate accordingly'}

¶35

t4. communicate^{a copy of the order to the parties concerned'}

¶36

(Dictated to the^{P.A., transcribed by her, corrected,signedand pronouncedby me in the opencourt on} inis tn"^{13thdaY of March,2026)}

¶37

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶38

TRUF C9PY
h; iffi

Canara Bank v. M/S. Narmada Powerloom Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Narmada Powerloom 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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Juluri Sai Krishna

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Sree Distributors

Canara Bank versus M/S. Indian Rice Depot

Canara Bank versus M/S. Next Plan Overseas Educational Consultancy

State Bank of India versus Seliveri Suresh Babu

State Bank of India versus M/S. Manila Shanthi Filling Station