Allowed

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

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/215/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Limited against an ex-parte defendant for recovery of Rs.39.52 lakh with future interest. The court held the defendant liable based on examined evidence and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Defendant to pay Rs.39,52,915.51 with interest; OA claim secured by hypothecated vehicle; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kasula Karunakar Goud — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRiBUNAL-I] AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB. (HonS.), I,I.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 215 OF 2025

¶3

M/s. YES Eank Limited., OFfice at 1-8-387, 2ND Floor, Agravansh i^plaza, HUDA Lane, S. P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶4

. ....Applica nt.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Kasula Karunakar Goud H.No. 1 1 A, Shamirpet Mandal Thumkunta P.O Nisa, Hakimpet Dist Rangareddi, Hyderabad, Telangana-500079.

¶7

... Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan Defendant : Ex-parteEx-parte

¶9

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶10

:: ORDER ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank flled the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.39,52,915.51ps from the defendant with future interest @18o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶12

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

¶13

AY"*

¶14

oA.NO.215/202s

¶15

The Applicant Bank examlned Sai Pavan Gudivada, l4anager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex.A.l^to Ex.A.07.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for conslderation is:-

¶18

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled 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 against 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 Appticaflon No.215/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendant is tiable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.39,52,915.S1ps with future interest @15.01yo p.a. simple from the date of application til 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 fu"*

oA.NO.21sl202s

,Il,

applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the same to realise its deb|

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a coDv of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, coriecte4-signed .ro p.""ri.Io L,iu,n,n" open court on this the 28th Day of November, 2025). fu-*

¶32

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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. Gaddameedi Bharath Goud

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Varaha Constructions

Icici Bank Limited versus Kolli Madhavi