Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Ms BHADRI IMPEX PVT LIMITED vs SYNDICATE BANK on 19 August 2026
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present: - Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi, Presiding Officer Dated the 19<sup>th</sup> Day of August, 2026
M.A. No.23 of 2026
in
S.A. No.197 of 2018
**Between:**
1. M/s. Bhadri Impex Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Smt. Lakshmi Neerja Kumari, Flat No.34, Rama Sai Apartments, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2. M/s. Bhadri Spinning Mills Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Smt. Lakshmi Neerja Kumari, Flat No.34, Rama Sai Apartments, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
.....Petitioners/Applicants
**And:**
1. Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Rep. by its Authorised Officer, SME Ongole Branch, Opp. SSN Degree College, Mangamur Road, Prakasam District.
2. Sri. Viswaroopa Srinivasa Kshetra Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Chigurupati Tirupathaiah Chowdary, D.No.59-10-10, Lingamaneni Corporate House, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520008.
.....Respondents
**Present:-**
Ld. Counsel for Applicants - Sri B. Sreenivasa Reddy Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2 - Sri Lanka Venkateswarulu
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
Heard the Ld. Counsels of the applicant, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 on the above MA. Perused the record.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant filed a memo along with receipt. Keep it on record.
In the above MA, the applicant has prayed to set aside the order dt.12.09.2025 and restore the SA No.197/2018 to its original position to enable the petitioner to contest the matter.
In the above MA, the applicant has submitted that the bank has conducted auction against the schedule property. The petitioner has filed the SA. The counsel of the petitioner was engaged in the marriage of his daughter and the associate advocate engaged by the applicant counsel had not represented the case on 12.09.2025 and SA was dismissed for default on 12.09.2025.
In counter, the respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the MA with exemplary costs.
As per counter, the respondent No.2 has submitted that applicant was not sincere in compliance of the order of this Tribunal. The applicant was only dragging the matter. On 12.09.2025, the applicant was absent and applicant has not filed any representation petition on that date and this Tribunal has rightly dismissed the SA for non-prosecution of the case. The order dt.12.09.2025 is valid. It is further submitted that the explanation given by the applicant is not clear. The delay is condoned by this Tribunal without giving any opportunity to this respondent. This respondent has purchased the property in auction.
In MA No.20/2026, vide order dt.07.03.2026, this Tribunal has condoned the delay of 79 days. As per MA, the applicant counsel was engaged in his daughter's marriage, hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, MA No.23/2026 is hereby allowed and I direct the Ld. Registrar to restore the SA No.197/2018 to its original number.
The Ld. Counsel of the applicant, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were present, hence I fix SA No.197/2018 for final arguments on 04.09.2026 and direct the applicant and respondents to argue the case on the above fixed date. SA No.197/2018 is pending since year 2018, hence no further time will be granted to any party for arguments. Accordingly, MA No.23/2026 is hereby allowed.
[Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 19<sup>th</sup> August, 2026]
**PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM**