Allowed

Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs.Dappu Sunitha

DRT28 Mar 2025OA/80/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery. After deducting auction proceeds of Rs.36,73,000/-, the defendants were held jointly and severally liable to pay the balance dues with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay balance dues of Rs.37,47,879.40/- less Rs.36,73,000/- with future interest and costs.

Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs.Dappu Sunitha — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-]I AT^HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB,^{(HONS.), M.A.}

¶4

PRESiDING OFFICER

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: B0 OF 2024

¶6

M/S.YES Bank Limited., office at 1-8-387, 2nd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. Da ppu Sunitha,
Wo. M r.Shanakaraiah,
H. No.1-3, Chitkul Chitkul,
VTC Chitku l, Near Pochamma
Temple, Patancheru, Medak,
Hyderabad - 5O23O7 .

¶10

l,lr. Dappu Ch in na,
S/o,Mr.Dappu Ramulu,
H. No.1-3, Chitku I Chitkul,
VTC Chitkul, Nea r Pochamma
Temple, Patancheru, Meda k,
Hyderabad - 502307 .

¶11

... Defendants

¶12

: M/s.N.B.Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant Defendants : Ex-pa rte

¶13

:: ORDER ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.37,47,879.40ps from the defendants jointly and

¶15

oA.NO.80/2024

¶16

severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. from the date of in application till the date of realization along with costs and default for sale of hypothecated asset.

¶17

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on L7.06.2024 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined D.Shyam Kumar Reddy, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex. A.07. It is submitted that the bank realized the amount of Rs.36,73,000/- in the auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

¶19

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideratlon is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the balance OA claim against the Defendants?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affldavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.07 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 llable to pay the OA claim, Less Rs.36,73,000/- being the amount realised by way of sale of OA hypothecated asset to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Appllcatlon No.80/2024 is allowed as under: - %ttq

¶24

oA.NO.80/2024

¶25

i) The Defendants are^jointly and^severally liable to^pay to the Applicant^{Bank a sum of} Rs.37 ,47 ,879.40Ps less^{Rs.36,73,000/-} realized under SARFAESI^{Proceedings with} future interest @11olo^{p.a. simple from the} date of application till^{the date of realization;}

¶26

ii) the applicant bank^{is also entitled to proceed} against the^person and^propertiesof defendants for^{realization of its balance dues;}

¶27

iii ) the applicant bank^{is entitledfor the costs.}

¶28

B. The Applicant Bank^is directed^{to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of^{this Order.}

¶29

Issue Recovery Certiflcate^{according ly.}

¶30

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 28th Day of March,^2025).

¶31

.-..'

¶32

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs.Dappu Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited v. Mrs.Dappu Sunitha

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

Akhil Ghanta versus Shriram City Union Finance

Rajesh Janyavula versus Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S M P Enterprises

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Excel Auto Care

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) versus M/S Bhaskara Medical Diagnostics

Unity Small Finance Bank Limited versus Shri Durga Traders