Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Eramalla Ramesh

DRT14 Nov 2025OA/479/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Yes Bank Limited against two defendants. The Court held the respondents jointly liable to pay the claimed debt along with interest and costs, and upheld the bank's right to realize dues from the hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly liable to pay Rs. 30,99,102.28 with interest and costs; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Eramalla Ramesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 479 OF 2025

¶6

The YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387,2'd Floor Agravansh i Plaza, HUDA Lane S P Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

Versus

¶8

lv'lr. Eramalla Ramesh, S/o. Chinna Balaiah, Aged about 33 Years Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.4-120 I4adgul, Mahabubnagar - 509327.

¶9

lvl rs. Eramalla Vijayalakshmi Wo.^{E. Ramesh, Aqed about27 Yea-s} Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No.4- 120 Madgul, Mahabu bnagar - 509327.

¶10

... Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant

¶12

\ Defendants L

¶13

: M/s. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶14

: Ex-parte

¶15

:: (l![f[ ::

¶16

The Applicant Bank Rled the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.30,99,102.28ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 05.02.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hvoothecated vehicle.

5/Y,"'

oA.NO.479l2025

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 22.08.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Sai^pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. 4.06.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.^perused the materlal 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.06 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.479l2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are join y and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.30,99,102.28ps with future interest @11olo^p.a. simple from the date of application titt the date or redizatiofuT;b

¶28

oA.NO.479l2025

¶29

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 deb|

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

9 Issue Recovery Ceftificate accordingly.

¶34

10 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 14th Day of November, 2025).

¶35

Aww (MivrfsHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Eramalla Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Eramalla Ramesh

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

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Kodupaka Nagaraj