Allowed

Yes Bank v. Orsu Alluraiah

DRT17 Jun 2025OA/4/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Limited for recovery of Rs.38.47 lakhs with interest and costs from a sole defendant who appeared ex-parte, holding the claim evidenced by marked documents was valid and securing the debt via hypothecation.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.38,47,839.75 with interest; OA claim secured by hypothecated vehicle; applicant entitled to proceed against person/property for realization; costs awarded.

Yes Bank versus Orsu Alluraiah — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE^{17th DAY OF JUNE, 2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B,COM.,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION^{No: 04 OF 2025}

¶4

M/S.YES Bank Limited., oirice at r-g-3e2,^{2ND Floor,} Ag ravanshl Plaza,^{HUDA Lane,} S. P. Road, Secunderabad -^500003. n"p. Ov iis Authorized Signatory.

¶5

"^Applicant'

¶6

Versus

¶7

lYr. Orsu Alluraiah,^{S/o.Mr.Narasimhulu,} Siriarcade, Flat^{No.402,MRNC Colony,} Film Nagar, Hyderabad,^{Telan ga na- 50003 3.}

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

M r. Orsu Allu raiah, Pedda Nagulavram^MarkaPur, Defendant Prakasaml ongole, Andhra^Pradesh -^523329.

¶10

: M/s.N.B.Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant Defendant : Ex-Pa rte

¶11

:: g-LLLL ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.38,47 ,839.75ps from the defendant^{wlth future} interest @18o/o^p.a. from the^date of^{applicationtlll the date of} realization along with costs and in default for^{sale of} hypothecated vehicle.

¶13

Summon sent to sole defendant returned^{with endorsement} unclaimed hence, deemed to be served and^{was set ex-parteon} 07.04.2025 as called absent and^no representation. .1* -, "- 6^n't

¶14

oA.NO.04/2025

¶15

The Applicant Bank exam jned Sai Pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.07.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is entiued for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank agatnst the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.O4l2025 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.38,47,839.75ps with future interest @9.26% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

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

¶23

oA.NO.04/202s

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

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 17th Day oflune, 2025).

¶31

/dW,.tu,n / ,Y 'r'r.'J\ (RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank v. Orsu Alluraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Orsu Alluraiah

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 M/S. K K Eywear

M/S. Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Umadevi Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Kandada Manaiah

State Bank of India versus M/S. Saraswathi Traders

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Sri Gokula Garments

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Moparthy Bhavani