Allowed

Yes Bank v. Tummati Mallesh Yadav

DRT14 Nov 2023OA/652/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an application for debt recovery filed by Yes Bank Limited against two defendants. After the defendants remained in absentia, the Tribunal held that the evidence and documents marked by the bank clinched the claim, making the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Directive to defendants to pay Rs. 26,53,646.35 with future interest; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated vehicle to realize debt.

Yes Bank versus Tummati Mallesh Yadav — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRiBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAI4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 652 OF 2022

¶4

Yes Bank Limited, Offlce at # 1-8-387,3rd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S,P. Road, Secu ndera bad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

N4r. Tummati Mallesh Yadav, S/o. Yadaiah Yadav,

¶8

Aged: 41 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 66, Phase-III, NearBDReddyGardens, Chaitanya Nagar, H ydera bad- 500070.

¶9

Mrs. Tummati Aruna,

¶10

W/o. lYallesh Yadav

¶11

Aged: 35 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o, Plot No. 66, Phase-III, NearBDReddyGardens, Chaitanya Nagar, H ydera bad- 500070,

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Mr. Tummati Mallesh Yadav Clo. # l-l04l7, Pocharam. Ranga Reddy Dist,-501506.

... Defendants

O%*

oA.NO.6s2l2022

Counsel for the Applicant Defendants

¶18

lvlr. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶19

Exparte

¶20

:: ORDER::

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 26,53,646.35ps from the defendants joinuy and severally with future interest @ 18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 72.05.2022 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶22

Summons served on D1 & 2. The defendants were set exparte on 09.72-2022 as called absent and no representation. The Applicant Bank examined D. Shyam Kumar Reddy, Asst. Vice President, as AW-1 and marked 1O documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶23

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed on merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶25

whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants.

¶27

'1/ ':|.nxt > -

¶28

oa.No,6sz/2o22

¶29

Hence, I hold^{that the Defendantsare jointly and severally liable} to^pay the OA^{claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest} and costs.

¶30

In the^{result, the present Original ApplicationNo'65212O22is} allowed as^under:-

¶31

The^{Defendants are jointly and severally}

¶32

i) liable to^{pay to the Applicant Banka sum of} Rs'^{26'53'646'35ps with ftrture interest @} g '25l9lo P'a'^{simple from the dateof} application^{till the date of realization;}

¶33

ii)^{the oA claim issecured ot *:' -::} hypothecation^{of vehicledescribed in the} schedule^{annexed to the OO :^O--::} applicant^{bank is entitled to proceed against} the^{same to realiseits debt;}

¶34

iii)^{the apprrcant bank:il'.T:-::::["j"":} asainst^theor :ejri]ution^{ot't' o'"t;} defendants^f

¶35

iv)^{the apprrcant mk':T:"''.:J::":il,nz ".'}

¶36

The^{ApplkantBank^is c}

¶37

1. of^{this order.} "' the^{date of recell}

¶38

, "orn^{;;" ;.""} "" :::[ffi;#il:-.1;.!ifJ";',,if^{[1"J,[i1,^""}

¶39

;',i;,r,[#li;l]u'"*ht,

¶40

Kri #*$s:Pr+t

Yes Bank v. Tummati Mallesh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Tummati Mallesh Yadav

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus G Ravi Kumar

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav versus Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Raghavandra Associates

Canara Bank versus M/s Saluja Communication and Others

Bank of India versus Ms Jayashree Paridhan

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) versus Mr.Dora Maheswara Rao