Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Sri Nataraj Trading Co.

DRT17 Feb 2026TA/7/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Application for Outstanding Claims filed by Karur Vysya Bank against a proprietary firm and its proprietor and guarantor. Finding the bank's claim substantiated, the Tribunal directed defendants to repay the principal sum with interest and liability to enforce recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.28,45,606/- with interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Sri Nataraj Trading Co. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE I6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

TA.No.7 OF 2025

¶4

Between:

¶5

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Having its OMC/RA division, II floor, H.No.5-8-356 to 362, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001. Represented by its Dy. Gen Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri Nataraj Trading Co., Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Kashinath Tadakamdla, Having office at No.5/38/D, New Goods shed road, Moosapet, Rangareddy, TSs - 500 018.

¶9

Mr. Kashinath Tadakamadla, S/o Mr. Lingaiah Tadakamadla, Aged 59 years, occ: business, R/o 5-7-321211, plot no.61, Sangeeth nagar, Near Metro cash Carry, Kukatpally, Rangareddy Hyderabad - 500 072.

¶10

Mr. Nikith Chandra Tadakmadla, .,'., s/o Kashinath Tadakmadla, aged 31 years, occ: pvt service, R/o 5-7-32/2/1, plot no.61, Sangeeth nagar, Near Metro cash Carry, Kukatpally, Rangareddy Hyderabad - 5OO O72.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

(TA.No.7 of 2025)

¶13

Counselfor theParties:
FortheApplicant	LotusLawAssociates
FortheDefendants	Exparte
Reservedon	12.02.2026
Pronouncedon	L6.02.2026
Uploadedin websiteon	t7.02.2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,45,6O6l_ (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Six only) with interest @ 160/o p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization.

¶16

As per the averments in the apprication, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietary firm represented by its proprietor / defendant no,2 and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor availed loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs and executed loan agreement and demand promissory note. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank rssllrect.the.accoultiqs NPA on 04.12.2024 and recall notice was ir.,iea on 204.2o;S\spite of severat requesrs and demands, the oeienoa'h& Afd.$?Lr"uile outstandins. Hence rhis oA.

¶17

(TA.No.7 of 2025)

¶18

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 04.02.2026.

¶19

sri r' Rama Krishna, Dy. Gen Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.8.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

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?

¶22

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and she exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.g. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶23

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.28,45,eO61- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs

¶24

Six Hundred and Six only) with interest @ till the date of realization.

¶25

(TA.No.7 of 2025)

¶26

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant no.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶30

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶31

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

¶32

sd/-

¶33

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Sri Nataraj Trading Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. M/S. Sri Nataraj Trading Co.

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 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