Allowed

Yes Bank v. Nellikanti Lingaiah

DRT16 Sept 2025OA/11/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Yes Bank Limited for the recovery of a debt of Rs.45,97,943.40 from the defendants jointly and severally, secured by a hypothecated vehicle, with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to pay Rs.45,97,943.40 with future interest and costs; allowing recovery via hypothecated vehicle; issuing Recovery Certificate.

Yes Bank versus Nellikanti Lingaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN TH E DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 11 OF 2025

¶5

lv'l/s.YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 2No Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Nellikanti Lingaiah S/o. Mr. Nellikanti Narsimha H.No.2-56, Bothallagudem Chalmeda, M un ugode, Nalgonda Telangana - 508244.

¶9

Mrs. Nellikanti Purnamma

¶10

S/o. Mr. Doti Ramulu, H.No.2-56

¶11

Bothallagudem, Chalmeda

¶12

Munugode, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508244.

¶13

... Defendants

¶14

: M/s. N.B.Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.45,97 ,943.40ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @187o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization alonq with costs and in default for sale of hypotheca ted vehidefu;\d&

¶19

oA.NO.11/2025

¶20

¶21

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 01.05.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined Sai Pavan Gudivada, Legal 14anager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled 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.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank cllnches 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.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.11/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.45,97,943.40ps with future interest @10olo^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of rcatizatio(L?y,a8

¶29

oA.NO.11l202s

¶30

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 debU

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

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 15th Day of September, 2025).

¶36

Ow^"" (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank v. Nellikanti Lingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Nellikanti Lingaiah

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Nivansh Modulars

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Ramesh Paper Plate Supply

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammed Fareeduddin

Manadala Sriramulu versus Union Bank of India

A Kishore Chowdary versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Tokala Nageswara Rao