Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench

Sri Karri Lakshmi vs The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank Presently Canara Bank At Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam- 530043.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata · Decided on 12 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Srivastava, J
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 98 of 2025 (Arising out of S.A. 07 of 2020 in DRT Visakhapatnam)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 194 words

Judgment delivered on: 12.08.2026 Appeal 2025-DRAT-Kolkata IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKAТА Appeal No. 98 of 2025 (Arising out of S.A. 07 of 2020 in DRT Visakhapatnam)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

CHAIRPERSON

1.

Sri Karri Lakshmi, W/p Demudu, Resident of Door No. 58-15-80, Santhi Nagar, N.A.D. Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009; Appellant -Versus-

1. The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank presently Canara Bank at

Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam- 530043.

2.

Smt. Anala Saraswathi, W/o. Srinivas Rao, Resident of Door No. 6-31, Railway Station Road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam- 530027. Respondent Counsel for Appellant Mr. T.Jeevan(Virtual) Counsel for Respondents Mr. Onkar Ganguly JUDGMENT 12th August, 2026

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

Instant appeal has arisen against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Learned DRT Visakhapatnam, dismissing the S.A. 07 of 2020 (Sri Karri Lakshmi -vs- The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank).

2. As per pleadings of the parties, appellant is the

borrower of the respondent bank who availed the loan of Rs.

10,00,000/- on 13.10.2015 by creating equitable mortgage

of the Schedule A and B properties to the Respondent Bank. The husband of the applicant stood as guarantor. Account became irregular and was classified as NPA. Notice under

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment
Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment