Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Panchawati Silks

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/538/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DTAT II Hyderabad allowed Original Application No. 538/2025 filed by Yes Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 24.36 lakhs from Panchawati Silks and Mr. Golchha Siddhant. The Tribunal declared the defendants jointly and severally liable, upheld the security by way of hypothecation of a vehicle, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 24,36,040.23 with future interest; hypothecated vehicle liable for realization; Recovery Certificate issued.

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Panchawati Silks — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoIHE, B.com., L. L B. (Hohc \ M . ,"r.A. pRESTDTNG oirrc# '^EU ''|u"s.,,

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 538 OF 2025

¶5

The YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387 , znd Floor Agravanshi^ptaza, HUDA Lane S P Road, Secunderabad _ 5OOOO3. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

..... Applica nt

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ills. Panchawati Silks., Rep by its^partner, F|r.Golchha Siddhant, Unit No.8, H.No.6_3-348 lvlidtown Complex, Dwarakapuri Colony, Hyderabad _ 5OOO34.

¶9

N1r. colchha Sidhant, S/o. Golcha Bimal Aged about 33^years, Occ: Business R/o. H No-.6-2-39127, Chandrika Colony Pillar No.293, Rajender Nagar Hyderabad - 500052.

¶10

Also at:C/o. M/s. Panchawati Sitks.,

¶11

Unit No.8, H.No.6-3-348, Midtown

¶12

Complex, Dwarakapuri Colony

¶13

Hyderabad - 500034.

¶14

...Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant lYls. I,1. Srin ivas Reddy

Defendants Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.24,36,040.23ps from the defendants joinfly and /bz* (-!/ rA'

¶20

oA.NO.538/2025

¶21

¶22

severally^{with futureinterest@18o/o p acompoundedwith} monthly^{rests from 22'Og '2024 till the date of realizationalong} with costs^{and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle'}

¶23

paPer Publication.^TheY 2. Summons^{served on D1 and 2 through} called absent^{and no} were set^{ex-Parteon 09 10 2025as} representation.

¶24

The Applicant^{Bank examinedSai PavanGudivada'Leqal} Manager,^{as Aw-1 and marked06 documentsthrough himas} Ex. A.1 to^{Ex. A.06.}

¶25

Heard the^Ld. Counsel for^{the Applicant Bank Perused the} material Placed on record.

¶26

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

¶27

Whether the^{Appticant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendants^{and OA hYpothecated} vehicle?

¶28

As stated supra,^{the Defendants remained ex-parte The} Evidence Affidavlt^{coupled with the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to^{A.06 marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the claim^{of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendantsare jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the OA^claim to^{the Appllcant Bank with future interest} and costs,

¶29

In the result, the^{present Original Application No'538/2025is} artowed as under: - OW*"

¶30

OW*"

¶31

oA.NO.538/2025

¶32

i) The Defendants^{are iointly and severally} liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.24,36,040.23ps^{with futureinterest} @8.060/o^{p'a. simple from the date of} application^{till the date of realization;}

¶33

the OA claim^{issecured bY waYof}

¶34

ii) 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;

¶35

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

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

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 19th Day of November, 2025).

¶40

PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Panchawati Silks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Panchawati Silks

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 Sree Vmk Hotels

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Renuka Steel and Hardware

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mythri Techno Solutions Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Gangaram Krishna Reddy

Canara Bank versus M/s. Faheem Plastics.

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy