Allowed

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

DRT31 Oct 2025OA/233/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a money recovery application filed by Yes Bank Limited against borrowers for a defaulted housing loan. The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount, interest, and costs based on unchallenged documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 42,65,590.02 with future interest @ 10.5% p.a. from date of application, enforce mortgage security, and pay costs.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Lakdaram… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 233 OF 2023

¶4

M/s YES BANK Limlted, Office at 1-8-387, 3rd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003 Rep. by its authorized signatory

¶5

...Applica nt

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Lakdaram Chandrasekhar Reddy,

¶8

S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy Aged About 46 Years, Occ: Business R/o. Plot No. 209, Isnapur Village, Patanchervu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District - 502307 Also at: Mr. Lakdaram Chandrasekhar Reddy C/o. H. No.3-32, Pasham Mailaram, Patanchervu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District - 502307

¶9

Mrs. Lakdaram Roopa

¶10

Wo.^{ChandrasekharReddy} Aged About 37 Years, Occ: Housewife R/o. Plot No. 209, Isnapur Village Patanchervu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District - 502307

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Mrs. Lakdaram Roopa C/o. H. No.3-32, Pasham Mailaram, Patanchervu Mandal, .....Defendants Sanga Reddy District - 502307

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy Counsel for Defendant : Mr. D. Rajashekar ./Aw-.,o, ,rr'^-'11.$''- :./

oA No.233/2023

::O-LLEL::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery} of Debts & Bankruptcy^{Act, 1993 for recoveryof a sum of Rs'} 42,65,590.021-^{ps From the defendantwith future interest @ 18% p'a'} compounded with monthly^{rests from the date of application till the} date of realisation^{alongwith costs.}

¶18

The averments of the^{applicant bank as per the oA, in brlef, are} that 1"t defendant as borrower^{and 2nd defendant as co-borrower} availed Housing^{loanfacility of Rs.76 lakhs. They executednecessary} loan documents and^{created mortgage overOA scheduleimmovable} property by deposit of original^{sale deed Doc. No.1070/2017 towards} security for the^{loan.After availing loan facility, defendantsneglected} in making repayment.^{The applicant bank lnformedthe defendant that} their loan was classified^{as defaultedaccount despiteseveral} reminders and demands, they^{failed to regularizethe account.After} classifying the account^{as NPA} ,^{appllcantbank issueddemandnotice} dated 03.11.2022 but to no avail.^{The outstanding dues recoverable} from the defendants work^{out to Rs. 42,65,590.02ps as on} 17.70.2022. As the^{defendant failed to clear the dues, the presentOA} is filed.

¶19

The Defendants^{filed written statement.At the outset,they} denied all the OA^{averments as mereallegations. Defendantsavailed} the housing loan facility up to^{the limit of Rs.76,00,000/-from the} applicant bank. Due to Covid-19^{pandemic,their businessgot} adversely affected. They^{assertthat the Applicant Bank suppressed} and misrepresented^{materialparticularsand reliedon documents that} are claimed are^fabricated or^{falsified. The bank took signatures on} blank forms and misused^{them.TheDefendants}^s!Q!F tate^tha l^{t they never} /M

¶20

OA No.233/2023

¶21

signed any loan agreement or promissory note filed by the bank and in fact, made regular payments except for delays due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The amount payable is less than Rs.20 lakhs. There is no cause of action arose on the dates as mentioned in the OA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined D. Shyam Kumar Reddy, Legal l4anager as AW-1 and marked 10 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.10.

¶23

Defendants' right of adducing evidence was forfeited vide docket order dated 25.08.2025 as they failed to adduce evidence even after affording sufficient opportunity.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant bank reported no oral arguments but filed written arguments. Defendant right of advancing argument forfeited on 13.10.2025 as no representation. perused the written arguments filed by learned counsel for the applicant bank and material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and as prayed for?

¶27

According to applicant bank. after availing housing loan facility the defendants neglected in repayment and they also failed to regularize the account in spite of opportunity given. A loan recall notice was given on 07.17.2022. As no payment was made, the present OA is filed and its claim is amply proved tryilRlr..the(evidence

// /'^./\\.+-'

(

oA No.233/2023

affidavit of^{AW-1coupledwith recitals in Exs A'1 to A 10 marked} through^{him and hence OA deserves to be allowed'}

¶32

As stated^{supra, the defendantfiled written statementdenying} the OA. Except^{making bald remarks that signatures were obtained on} blank forms,^{outstandingis less thanthe claim amount' no cause of} action to^{file OA etc., the defendants did not chooseelther to produce} any documentary^{evidence disproving the OA claim or to cross} examine the^{applicant bank's witnessesto disprove the veracity of the} documents^{filed by the applicantbank On the other hand'the} Applicant^{Bank marked documents through its witnessto substantiate} itsclaim.Undersuchcircumstances,EvidenceAffidavitcoupledwlth the recitals^{in the documents viz', Exs A l to A'10 marked on behalf of} the Applicant^{Bank remains unchallenged and un-rebutted'Hence' I} hold that the^{defendants are jointlyand severally liable to pay the OA} ctaim to^{the ApplicantBankwith futureinterestand costs'}

¶33

In the^{result, the present Original ApplicationNo 233/2023is} allowed as^under:-

¶34

i) Defendants^{are jointlyand severallyliable to paya} sum of Rs.42,65,590.02^{ps to the applicant bank} along with future^{interest@1050o/o p a simple from} the date of application^{till the date of realization;}

¶35

ii) The claim of the^{Applicant Bank is securedby way of} mortgage of OA^{scheduleimmovableproperty and the} Applicant Bank^{is entitledto proceedagainst the same} for recovery of debt;

¶36

iii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to^{proceed against} the^person and properties of the^{defendantsfor} realization of its dues; and

¶37

iv) the Applicant^{Bankis entitled for-thecosts.} ffi^"o

¶38

OA No.233/2023

¶39

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

¶40

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this^{order to the parties concernedand} upload in the official^website.

¶42

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronouncedby me in the open court on this the 31't} day of October, 2025.)

¶43

'-Ur'\tt' rsr9 ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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 Mrs. M Savitha

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr. Jatangi Vishwanth