Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Industries.

DRT9 Sept 2026OA/714/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of dues from the defendants. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the term and overdraft loans with interest, permitting security enforcement and recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 1.12 Cr with interest; secured by mortgage properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Industries. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OgTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B,Com., L.LB. (Hons.), T4.A. PRESIDING OFFiCER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 714 OF 2026

¶5

Canara Bank., Specialised SME Branch, Door No.6-3-219 Ram Nagar, Extension Kamma Bhavan Rudrampet, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh-515001. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Industries., Prop. Nandina Papi Reddy Sy.No.7912, 79/4, 79/s, 76/6 Chinmanya Nagar, JNTU Road Prasannayapalli GP, Ananthapur Andh ra Pradesh - 515002.

¶9

Sri Nandina Papi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, H. No.5-303, Chinmaya Nagar Rapthadu, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh-515002.

¶10

Smt. Nandina Parvathi, W/o. Nandina Papi Reddy/ H.No.5-303, Chinmaya Nagar Rapthadu, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh-515002.

¶11

...Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applica nt : Mr. P. Sai Chandrasekhar

¶13

Defenda nts

¶14

: Ex-parte

¶15

::^qLD-L& ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,12,75,865.46ps i.e., a sum of Rs.10,68,244.48ps towards Term Loan A/c. No. 1679450001112 and a sum of

i-no*

oA.NO.71412025

Rs.1,02,07,620.98ps towards OD Loan Alc. No. 31671400001802; from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @110/o p.a. with monthly rests from 01.05.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule^properties.

¶21

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set ex-parte on 02.09.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined N V Praveen, Legal I4ana9er, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.77412026 is allowed as under: - fun"t

¶28

oA.NO.7L4l2O26

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,12,75,865.46ps i.e., a sum of Rs,10,68,244.48ps towards Term Loan A/c.No.31679450001112 and a sum of Rs.1,02,07,620.98ps towards OD Loan A/c. No. 31671400001802; with future interest @10.45%^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the Ogth Day of September, 2026).

¶36

suwrn\ ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

ofi,lth Llaz_b

¶38

^v^{lnt I tnr l}

¶39

O,lginal Docum€nts^{verified. mark'd&} returned to APplicant^{WITA3, a'ior} mr.klrY! rk)cuments 9s Ex -Ll-to

¶40

Applicant counsel^present along^{with AW-1 Mr. N' V. ''} :,)':^ Praveen, Assistant manager,^{Canara Bank, filed evidence} - affidavit and Ex. A-1^{to A-11 markedand reportedno} further evidence.^{Take summons against the defendanrffta} For filing POS call on 18'08'2026. tl )

¶41

18.08.2026. Applicant counsel^{present and filed memo submittingthat} summons^{sent to all three defendants served as per PTR'PTR} filed. No representation^{for defendants and hence called} absent,MatterplacedbeforetheHon'blePOforappropriate orders. Call on 02.09.2026. I ,. Jt t/ 4"[*V-

¶42

02.09.2026 Sri P Sai Chandra Sekhar counsel for applicant^present. Summons served on D1 to 3, called absent, no representation and set exparte. A1 to 11 already marked and reported no further AE. For exparte arguments, call on 09.09.2026.

¶43

,fiwU/ P.o.

¶44

09.09.2026 Sri P Sai Chandra^{Sekhar counsel for applicant submitted} exparte arguments. Orders^{will be passed duringcourse.} .,!., P.O. 09.09.2026 Orders Pronounced, vide separate^sheets.

¶45

In the result OA.No.714/2026 is allowed with^{costs. Issue} Recovery Certificate accordingly. I ,\ ,...,.,., _ -^,,. ' p.o.

Canara Bank v. M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Industries.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Industries.

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Mdh Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Rahul

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Mdh Tvs.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/s Sri Dharani Polymers

Indian Bank versus Venkateswarlu

Icici Bank Limited versus debeshranjan