Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Gaddameedi Bharath Goud

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/214/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery. The court held the defendant liable to pay the dues, confirmed the security over the hypothecated vehicle, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is directed to pay Rs. 27,13,175.50 with interest; recovery certificate issued against claim and hypothecated vehicle.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Gaddameedi Bharath Goud — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

]N THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB. (HONS.), I'I.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATIoN No: 214 oF 2025

¶4

M/s. YES Bank Limited., OFfice at 1-8-387, 2ND Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA La ne, S. P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lvl r. Gaddameedi Bharath Goud S/o. lYr. Ramesh Goud Gaddameedi 16 6 120 I 2, Osman^pura, Chader Ghat Hyderabad, Telanga na - 500024.

¶8

... Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan Defendant : Ex-pa Ex-pa rte

¶10

: Ex-pa Ex-pa rte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.27,13,175.50ps from the defendant with future interest @18olo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 25.07.2025 as called absent and no representation. ffi"*

¶14

oA.NO.214/2025

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

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

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant rematned 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 clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, t hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.21412025 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendant is tiable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.27,13,175.50ps with future interest @14.51olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

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

oA.NO.274/2O2s

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

¶29

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

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

¶34

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Gaddameedi Bharath Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Gaddameedi Bharath Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Pricon

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Gurudatta Earth Movers

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Abhis Wellness Studios

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kasula Karunakar Goud

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Varaha Constructions

Icici Bank Limited versus Kolli Madhavi