Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs. Beemanapalli Nagamani

DRT31 Oct 2025OA/229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte original application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a bank's claim for recovery of over Rs. 30 million against three defendants, declaring them jointly and severally liable and enforcing the hypothecation of a vehicle to realize dues.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are ordered to pay Rs.30,84,766.79 with interest; recoverable from the hypothecated vehicle and other properties of the defendants. A Recovery Certificate is issued.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Beemanapalli Nagamani — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 229 Of 2025

¶6

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

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. Beemanapalli Nagamani Wo.^{B. Nagesh,} Aged about 26 Years

¶10

Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-30 Palivela Village, Munugodu Mandal Nalgonda District - 508244.

¶11

Beemanapalli Nagesh, S/o. Venkulu Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.6-30, Palivela village Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda District - 508244.

¶12

Bathula Raju, S/o. Narsimha Aged about 33 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.4-10, SC Cotony Palivela Village, Munugodu Mandal Nalgonda District - 508244. ...Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶14

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

:: ORDER ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.30,84,766.79ps from the defendants joinuy and ffi*or

¶17

oa.No.229l2025

¶18

¶19

severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. from 03.72-2024 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶20

Summons served on D1 & 3, whereas summons served on D2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 23.07.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Sai Pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.08.

¶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 vehicle?

¶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.08 marked on behalf of the Applicant^Bank clinches 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.

¶26

In the result, the^present original Application^{No.22912025is} allowed as under: - /t{w.t^" (,/'^-'"r"9*

¶27

¶28

oA.NO.229l2O2s

¶29

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.30,84,766.79ps with future interest @10.25olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶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 entifled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (utcrareo to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31't Day of October, 2025).

¶36

/f,ry6*" lnek'esnwnR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs. Beemanapalli Nagamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs. Beemanapalli Nagamani

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Penmatsa Krishnam Raju

Smt Kandi Uma versus Canara Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Shri Durga Laxmi Traders

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Lakdaram Chandrasekhar Reddy

M/S. Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. M Savitha

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr. Jatangi Vishwanth