Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin

DRT14 Nov 2025OA/438/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte original application for recovery of dues, the Debt Recovery Tribunal held the defendant liable to pay the applicant bank the claimed amount with future interest and costs, allowing the application and directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.29,34,601.82 with future interest @11.25% p.a. plus costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

-/'--^"oRIGII{AL"

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHyvlll-[OTHE, B,Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application No: 438 OF 2O2S

¶4

M/s. YES Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, H.No.1-8-3g7 Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane S.P Road, Secunderabad - 5OOOO3. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin S/o. Mr. Hazi Mohammad, plot No.16 Rd-3, Phase 2, Thirumala Enclave Dhamaiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana_5000g3.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Mr. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin Fujitsu Consulting India private Limited., Plot No.1,2,3 and 4, 6th Floor, Western Aqua Building, Sy. 8, Hitech City Whitefields, Kondapur, Hyderabad lelangana - 500081.

¶10

Permanent Address:-

¶11

M!'. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin S/o. Mr. Hazi Mohammad, H.No.30-1591-1 Krupa Complex, Behind Bank of India Ramakrishna Puram, Hyderabad Telangana - 500056.

¶12

......Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant ,#ufufisrsh" Defendants :Ex-parte OK-

¶14

OA.No.438/2025

¶15

:: ORDER^::

¶16

sum of

¶17

1. The Applicant Bank^{filed the presentOA for the recovery of a} Rs.29,34,601.82ps^{from the defendant with future interest} @180/o p.a. with monthly rests from^{the date of applicationtill the} date of realisation along^{with costs'}

¶18

Summon served^{on sole defendantand was set ex-parte} on 06.08.2025 as^{called absentand no representation'}

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Sai^{Pavan Gudivada, LegalManager} as AW-1 and marked 06 documents^{throughhim as Ex. A.1 to Ex'} A.06.

¶20

4.HeardtheLd.CounselfortheApplicantBankandperusedthe material Placed on^record'

¶21

The point that arises for^{consideration is:-}

¶22

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitledfor} the claim made in the^{OA against the} Defendant?

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant^{remained ex-parte. The Evidence} Affidavit coupled with the^{recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to} A.06 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.

¶24

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.43Bl2025 is} alowed as undbr: Oftrr,*,

¶25

OA.No.438/2025

¶26

¶27

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.29,34,601.82ps with future interest @11.25%^p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the pafties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of November, 2025).

¶33

fu."

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Mohammad Baba Moinuddin

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

Sai Ram First Aid Centre versus Unity Small Finance Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Nandamuri Transporters

State Bank of India versus Mr. Birakayala Praveen, S/O Birakayala Swamy

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Kalavala Sunil Sagar

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Eramalla Ramesh

Icici Bank Limited versus Kodupaka Nagaraj