Allowed

Yes Bank v. Mr Nenavatha Pentya

DRT20 Nov 2023OA/332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad, in Original Application No. 332 of 2023, allowed the bank's claim for recovery of Rs. 23,42,366.19 with future interest against two defendants who remained absent. The court directed the defendants to pay the amount and proceed against the hypothecated vehicle or their other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 23,42,366.19 with future interest and costs; applicant bank authorized to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

Yes Bank versus Mr Nenavatha Pentya — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN^{THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THEzoth DAY OF NOVEMBER'} L.LB.^{(Hons.), M A'}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH RAMESHWaRI<oTHE|FB} .;lt'

¶3

Original^{ApplicationNo: 332 OF 2023}

¶4

Ir',illi. Hli'il^{i -',',,} -t';"l".?T' jil'""-'t!i#.i11'?i"'' n"p. iv '* Authorized^Signatory'

¶5

.....APPlicant'

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Nenavath^Pentya' H No. 3-115/2,^Gramam StrivaiPattY,^{Thanda Mandalam'} VenkaiaPur,^Medak' Sanga^{Reddy-502117'} Telangana^State

¶8

Mrs.^{NenavathLalitha'} No. 3-115/2,^Gramam liiuiiPurrv,^{Thanda Mandalam'} VenkataPur,^Medak' SangareddY-⁵⁰²¹¹⁷ ' Telangana^State'

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

counsel^{for the APPlicant}

¶11

Defendants

¶12

: Mr.^{N. B. Sudarshan}

: Exparte

@ry'-',o

oA.NO.332/2023

::^g-LLEB ::

The Appllcant Bank filed the^present OA^{for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.23,42,366.1Eps from the defendants^{jointly and} severally with future interest @^24o/og.a. from the^dateof application till the date of^{realizationalong with costs and in} default for sale of OA hypothecated^vehicle.

¶19

Summons served on D1 & D2. The defendants were^set exparte on 28.08.2023 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶20

3, The Appllcant Bank examined D. Shyam Kumar^{Reddy,Retail-} Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked^{7 documentsthroughhim} as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.7.

¶21

Ld, Counsel for the Applicant^{Bank reportedorders may be} passed on merits. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶22

The^point that arises^{for considerationis:-}

¶23

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendants and OA^hypothecated vehicle?

¶24

As stated supra,^{the Defendantsremainedex-parteThe} Evidence Affidavit coupled^{with the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to^{A.7 markedon behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of the^{ApplicantBankagainst the Defendants'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendants are jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the OA^{claim to the Applicant Bankwith future interest} and costs. fu*

¶25

oa,No.332/2023

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.332l2023 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally llable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.23,42,366.19ps with future interest @ t2.goqo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entiHe to proceed against the same realise its debts;

¶29

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

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶31

B, The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost l4emo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

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 2Ob Day of November, 20231.

¶34

Ox<"" 1C(uesnwan xortry PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank v. Mr Nenavatha Pentya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Mr Nenavatha Pentya

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

Rbl Bank Limited versus Rajesh Gupta

State Bank of India versus Abhishek Yadav

Punjab National Bank versus Mohit Kumar Arora

Canara Bank versus C K Karigowda

Icici Bank Limited versus Prashanth J

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh Harnek Singh