Allowed

Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs.Matla Sunitha

DRT28 Aug 2024OA/41/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.47/2022, Yes Bank Limited sought recovery of Rs.33,18,233.21 and future interest from three defendants. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad, Hyderabad, allowed the application ex-parte in the absence of defendants. The Tribunal held defendants jointly and severally liable, ordered sale of hypothecated vehicle, and directed issue of Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.33,18,233.21 with future interest; applicant permitted to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties; Recovery Certifica

Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs.Matla Sunitha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF^{AUGUST, 2024}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), lY.A} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No:^{41 OF 2022}

¶4

M/S.YES Bank Limited., office at 1-8-387,3'd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA^{La ne,} S.P Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

....,Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Matla Sunitha w/o.M.Ramesh,

¶8

Aged about 38 Years, Occ: Home Maker,^R/o.2-55,

¶9

S.C Colony, Kothulnaduma, Valbhapur, Near Hanuman^TemPle, Karimnagar - 505476.

¶10

Mr.l4atla Ramesh, S/o.M.Mogili, Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.2-55, S.C Colony, Kothulnaduma, Valbhapur, Near Hanuman TemPle, Karlmnagar - 505476.

¶11

Mr. Basani Fathima Reddy, S/o.B.Bala Reddy, Aged about 47 Yearc, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.31-3-796, Parimala Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal - 506001.

¶12

...Defendants /zXy(.*, L!/^/.trt$

¶13

oa.No.4t/2022

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

Defendants

¶16

lvlls. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶17

Ex-parte

¶18

:: ORDER::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.33,18,233.21ps from the defendants join|y and severally with future interest @ 1golo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶20

Summons served on D1 to 3, They were set ex-parte on

¶21

70.08.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined D.Shyam Kumar Reddy, Asst. Vice president Legal, as AW_1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex.A.1to Ex. A.11.

¶23

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be

¶24

passed through merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank againsqthe Defendants. - ,lirrl-'l-.. /4urt''-'

¶28

oA.NO.47l2022

¶29

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

¶30

In the result, the present Original Application No.4L/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.33,18,233.21ps with future interest @ 10o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

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 entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly,

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in ihe open court on this the 28th Day ofAugust, 2024).

¶38

MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDiNG OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs.Matla Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs.Matla Sunitha

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

Suniil Rangnath Kale versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S Magnifico Megacity LLP

Shachn Tea Factory versus Central Bank of India

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Hafifa Nasari Chemicals

Canara Bank versus Gaurav Maheshwari

Punjab National Bank versus Poonam@Poonamgulati