Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/539/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by YES Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 24,98,341.95 plus future interest and costs against the defendant, who remained absent. The court confirmed the liability and authorized proceeds against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is ordered to pay Rs. 24,98,341.95 with future simple interest, and the bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties. A Recovery Certificate is

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 539 OF 2025

¶4

The YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 3'd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lYr. Boddu Sushman Reddy, S/o. Ram Dharma Reddy, Aged about 46 Years Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.101 1st Floor, Palm Spring Apts, Kompally Medchal Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500014.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

C/o. Srikara Hospital, 3-6344, Main Road NH 44, Kompally, Hyderabad - 500014.

¶10

... Defenda nt

¶11

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

Defendant

: Ex-parte

:: CLLD-q& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.24,98,341.95ps from the defendant with future interest @18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 05.02.2025 till the date of realization alonq with costs and in default for sale of hypotheca rca venictefiv./*.f

¶16

oA.NO.539/2025

¶17

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 09.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Atfidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.07 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.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.539/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.24,98,341,95ps with future interest @15.50o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of rearization; OW^rU

¶25

oA.NO.s39/202s

¶26

¶27

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;

¶28

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

¶29

iv) 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 according ly.

¶32

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).

¶33

1flPuu/ (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Boddu Sushman Reddy

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

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 M/S. Panchawati Silks