Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Limited. v. Mrs. Padela Navya

DRT24 Jun 2025OA/577/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application for recovery of a debtor's due, the bench held that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed sum with future interest. The bank was also entitled to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and the defendants' other properties for realization of balance dues.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 20,31,198.42 with future interest; bank entitled to enforce claim against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties; recover costs.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. Padela Navya — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF ]UNE, 2025 PRESENT: SH, MMESHWaR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 577 oF 2024

¶3

M/s. Yes Bank Limited._ 3'o Floor, H.No.1-g-3g7. Agravanshi plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P Road, Secunderabad _ 5ObOO3. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶4

.....Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mrs..padela Navya, W/o. Sangameshwar. Ageo about 26 years, Occ: Self Emoloved. R/o. H. No.5-B -124/L44, rvu.avani.JJJi--' uotony, Sangareddy, Medak District_502001.

¶7

Mr. Baina Sangameshwar, S/o.B.LinoamAged about 36 years, Occ: Ausinessi-^"' R/o. H. No_, 5-8 - LZ4 / L44, rVa.aya naie-iOy Colony, Sangareddy, Medak Districi_i6zoor,

¶8

... Defendants

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

M/s.M.Srinivas Reddy

Ex-parte

:: oRDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.20,31,198.42ps from the defendants joinUy and severally with future interest @1go/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle. ffir"

¶15

oA.NO.s77l2024

¶16

¶17

Summons^{served on D1 and 2' They were set ex-parteon} 04.04.2025^{ascalled absentand no representation'}

¶18

The Manager, Applicant^{as AW-1 Bank and examined marked 07 Sai documents PavanGudivada' through him Legalas} Ex. A.1^{to Ex' A'7'}

¶19

Ld.CounselfortheApplicantBankstatedthatordersmaybe passed on^{merits' Perused the materialplaced on record'}

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

Whether^{the Appticant Bank is entitled} for the^{claim made in the OA against} the Defendants^{and OA hypothecated} vehicle?

¶23

AsstatedSupra,theDefendantsremainedex-parte.The EvidenceAffidavitcoupledwiththerecitalsinthedocuments viz,,Exs.A.ltoA.0TmarkedonbehalfoftheApplicantBank

¶24

clinchestheclaimoftheApplicantBankagainsttheDefendants. Hence,IholdthattheDefendantsarejointlyandseverallyliable topaytheoAclaimtotheAppticantBankwithfutureinterest and costs.

¶25

Intheresult,thepresentoriginalApplicationNo,5TT12024is allowed^{as under: -}

¶26

The Defendants^{are jointly and severally}

¶27

i) liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.20,31,198'42ps^{with future interest} @12.05%^{p.a. simple from the date of} application^{tiil the date of realization%g}

oA.NO.s77l2O24

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;

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

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 24n Day of June, 20251.

¶37

fi%,.'ie lnnKrsnwAR^KoTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Limited. v. Mrs. Padela Navya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Limited. v. Mrs. Padela Navya

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

State Bank of India versus Thathari Naveen Kumar

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Voruganti Shailaja

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. v R Global

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S. Bvrr Foods Processing Industries Private Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr. a Panchakshari Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Ajmeera Hari Naik