Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Mallikarjuna Markets

DRT13 Nov 2025OA/244/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 1.06 crore. The Defendants remained ex-parte. The Court held the claim is clinched by the evidence affidavit and documents, declaring the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal, future interest, costs, and proceeds from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are to pay Rs. 1,06,65,076.50 plus future interest at 11.50% p.a., with the claim secured by hypothecated vehicles and the bank entitled to proceed against assets for realization and co

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Mallikarjuna Markets — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEN'IBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B,Com., L.LB.^(HonS.), IVl.A,

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 244 OF 2025

¶6

The 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

M/s. Mallikarjuna Markets., Rep by its Proprietor Mr.P.Srikanth Yadav, Office at Shop No.1,2,3 & 4 Plot No.41, Sy.No.55, Bandlaguda Jagir, Dwaraka Nagar Colony Gandipet, Hyderabad - 500086.

¶10

Mr. Pegada Srikant Yadav S/o. A. Pratap Goud, Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Business, H.No.4-1-69 Kalika Nagar Colony, Near Kalamandir Bandlaguda Jagir, Rajendra Nagar Ranga Reddy - 500086.

¶11

...oefendants

¶12

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

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: qLLLL ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,06,65,076.50ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @ 1qo/o p.a. compounded with /,h$-/^^

(/.o'*

oA.NO.244l2O2S

monthly rests from 03.12.2024 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶21

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 77.07.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants 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 Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinuy and severa y liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.244l2025 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of K^tY

¶29

oA.NO.24412025

¶30

¶31

Rs.1,06,65,076.50ps with future interest @11.5olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

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 entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶33

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

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

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 13th Day of November, 2025).

¶38

Ow*t

¶39

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Mallikarjuna Markets

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Mallikarjuna Markets

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Edwin Francis Lawrence

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs.N Lohitha

M/S. Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Naga Lakshmi Chilupuri

M/S. Canara Bank versus Mrs. Mallepogu Shirisha

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Ayyappa Logistics

Icici Bank Limited versus Ifthekhar Ahmed Mohammed