Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Moparthy Constructions

DRT11 Dec 2025OA/12/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for debt recovery, the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad allowed the application against absent defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed sum with interest and costs, and authorized recovery from hypothecated vehicles. The bank was directed to file a cost memo.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.58,76,769.92 with interest; recovery from hypothecated vehicles and properties; cost memo to be filed.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Moparthy Constructions — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), IVI.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 12 OF 202 5

¶6

I4/S.YES Bank Limlted., Office at 1-8-387, 2ND Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secundera bad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

. ....Appllca nt.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Moparthy Constructions., Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Moparthy Srinivas Rao

¶10

Plot No.92, Chandra Nagar Colony Medchal Rangareddy, KV Rangareddy Hyderabad, Tela ngana - 501401.

¶11

Ms. lYoparthy Ma hathi D/o. 14r. Guravalah Babu Kosaraju Plot No.92, Chandra Nagar Colony Medchal Rangareddy, K V Rangareddy Hyderabad, Tela nga na - 501401.

¶12

.. . Defenda nts

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

: M/s. N. B. Suda rshan

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank flled the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.58,76 ,769.92ps from the defendants jointly and severaily with future interest @18o/o p.a. from the date Of application till the date of reallzation along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehiclesf4D,z'$!t^

¶19

oA.NO.12l202s

¶20

Summons served on Dl^{and 2. Theywere set ex-parte} on 28.03.2025 as called absent^{and no representation'}

¶21

The Applicant^{Bank examinedSai Pavan Gudivada,Legal} Manager, as AW-1 and^{marked 05 documentsthrough him as} Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶24

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

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants^{remained ex-parte. The} Evidence Affidavit coupled^{with the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05^marked on^{behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the claim of^{the Applicant Bank against the Defendants.} Hence, I hold that the Defendants^{are jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the OA claim to the^{Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶26

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo.1212025is} allowed as under:^-

¶27

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.58,76,769.92ps with future^interest @9.5olo^{p.a. simple from the date of}

¶28

oA.NO.12l2025

¶29

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicles described in the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debU

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

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 11th Day of December,2025).

¶35

Ow"* Ry'ir(rsHwRR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Moparthy Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Moparthy Constructions

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Bheeshma Jute Industries Private Limited.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Maya Ladies Corner

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Thandu Srinivasulu

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Pathan Fairoz Khan

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Tanguturi Sai Krishna

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mr. T. Srinivas Reddy