Allowed

Yes Bank Limited v. M/S Laqshya Infra Devolopers India Pvt. Ltd.

DRT18 Sept 2024OA/127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Rameshwar Kothé allowed DT-II Hyderabad Original Application No. 127/2022. The court held the respondent-defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 21,45,793.21 with interest, costs, and realization from hypothecated vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 21,45,793.21 with interest; OA secured by hypothecated vehicle; bank entitled to costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Yes Bank Limited versus M/S Laqshya Infra Devolopers India… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE l8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 127 OF 2022

¶4

M/S.YES BANK Limited., OFfice at 1-B-387, 3'd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s.Laqshya Infra Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Office at Plot No.38, 1tt Floor, Tulasi Apts, Prashanthi Hills, Khajaguda Junction, Hyderabad - 500104.

¶8

Mr.Selvaraj Thirunavukkarasu S/o.Selvaraj, Aged about 61 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.215, Central Paradise, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad - 500032.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Mr.Selvaraj Thirunavukkarasu C/o. Plot No.38, l't Floor, Tulasi Apts, Prashanthi Hills, Khajaguda Junction, Hyderabad - 500104.

¶11

Mr.Santhi Kumar Bhandari S/o.Not Known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, Plot No.38, 1't Floor, Tulasi Apts, Prashanthi Hills, Khajaguda Junction, Hyderabad - 500104,

OY"*

oa.No.727l2022

Mr.Surya Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Palanc S/o.Not Known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, Plot No.38, 1't Floor, Tulasi Apts, Prashanthi H ills, Khajaguda Junction, Hyderabad - 500104.

¶16

Karuna Devi Pu li D/o.Not Known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, Plot No.38, 1't Floor, Tulasi Apts, Prashanthi H ills, Khajaguda lunction, Hyderabad - 500104.

¶17

Lalitha Reddy Rajula D/o. Not Known, Aged Major, Occ: Business, Plot No.38, 1't Floor, Tulasi Apts, Prashanthi H ills, Khajaguda Junction, Hyderabad - 500104.

¶18

... Defendants

¶19

Cou nsel for the Applicant

¶20

: lv1/s.M.Srinivas Reddy

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: qLLqE ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.21,45,793.21ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @ 180/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 25.11.2021 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶25

Summons served on D1 to 6. They were set ex-parte on 07.09.2022 as called absentand no representation.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined D.Shyam Kumar Reddy, Asst. Vice President, as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10. ffi"s

¶27

oA.NO.LZ7l2OZ2

¶28

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

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶30

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assefs2

¶31

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. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶32

In the result, the present Original Application No.l27/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶33

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,45,793.21ps with future interest @10.25olo^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶34

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the ffits

¶35

oA.NO.t27l2072

¶36

¶37

applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶38

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

¶39

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶40

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

¶41

9 Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶42

10 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 18th Day of September, 2024).

¶43

d1})

¶44

PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited v. M/S Laqshya Infra Devolopers India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited v. M/S Laqshya Infra Devolopers India Pvt. Ltd.

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

Mujeeb Rahman v K versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Abdul Kareem Haji Keyath versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Natubhai

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Maa Jagdamba Traders

Axis Bank versus Sh. Navneet Gulati

Uco Bank versus M/S Dreams Plus Consulting Pvt. Ltd.