Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Leo Travels

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/822/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte debts recovery tribunal application, the tribunal held the defendants liable to repay the applicant bank a principal sum of Rs. 29,70,210.50 with future interest and costs, allowing the sale of hypothecated assets and proceeding against defendant properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 29,70,210.50 with future interest at 12.35% p.a., costs, and permission to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendant properties. Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Leo Travels — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 822 OF 2025

¶6

CANAM BANK, Sanjeeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad-500038 and Rep. by authorized Representative

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S. LEO TMVELS

¶10

R/o. Plot No.346, Ground Floor,

¶11

Subash Nagar, Near Sai Baba Temple,

¶12

Hyderabad, Tela nga na -500055.

¶13

Represented by its Promoters Sri Mothkuri Mahesh

¶14

SRI MOTHKURI MAHESH

¶15

S/o. Sri Yadagiri, Aged about 33^years, R/o. Plot No.346, Ground Floor, Subash Nagar,

¶16

Near Sai Baba Temple, Hyderabad, Telangana-500055.

¶17

...Defendants

¶18

: Ms. A. Sravanthi Counsel for the Applicant

¶19

Counsel for the Defendants : Ex-parte

¶20

:: (LLLE& ::

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 29,70,210.50^ps with futurq interest @11.95o/o P.a. a *y/,',

¶22

2 oA.NO.a22l202s

¶23

from 20.08.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of OA hypothecated asset.

¶24

Summon served on defendants through paper publication and were set exparte on 24.02.2026 as called absent and no rePresentation.

¶25

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Ravi Kumar Alluri, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 14 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14.

¶26

Heard ex-parte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Appllcant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶28

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and oA hypothecated asset?

¶29

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.14 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶30

In the result, the present Original Application No.82212025 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) The Defendants are liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 29,70.210.50 ps / l -4<,YLs "^-:ts'

¶32

oA.NO.82212O2s

¶33

with future interest @12.35olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶37

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

¶38

q Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th Day of February, 2025).

¶41

Aw,u (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/S. Leo Travels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Leo Travels

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

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles

State Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Bharath Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

M/S. State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Subrahmanya Jewellers (Borrower)