Allowed

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav

DRT27 Oct 2025OA/808/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yes Bank Ltd. applied under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of a car loan defaulting amount. The Tribunal, acting ex parte against the non-appearance of the defendant, allowed the application and issued a Recovery Certificate. The Tribunal granted uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed 11.06%.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.23,71,675.10p with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date till realization. Recovery authorized via hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.808/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.06.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.10.2025

¶6

Yes Bank Ltd., Registered Office at Yes Bank House, off Western Express Highway, Santacurz (E) Mumbai-400055

¶7

Yes Bank Ltd., Northern Regional Corporate Office at SCO 129-130, Madhya Marg, Sector-9C, Chandigarh and having its Branch Office at SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab Through its Attorney Holder Sh. Aashiv Bhayana.

¶8

… …..Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav, S/o Sh. Narayan Yadav R/o Flat No.772 A, New Chandigarh, Cassia Omaxe, Mullanpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali140901.

¶11

2^nd address: Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav, S/o Sh. Narayan Yadav R/o Plot No.2004, Sector-14, West Dhanas, Chandigarh-160014.

¶12

….……Defendant

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for the Applicant

¶15

Defendant is ex parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.23,71,675.10p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five & Ten Paise Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Attorney Holder of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of attorney dated 28.03.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant had approached the applicant

¶19

2 OA/808/2025 YES BANK LTD. VS SH.SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

¶20

for the grant of Car Loan of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Loan Application Form dated 15.12.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Car Loan of Rs.21,03,138. 00and the terms and conditions were duly applicable to vehicle loan are Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant had hypothecated his immovable assets i.e. vehicle namely Mahindra XUV700 AX5 DSL AT 5 SEATER, bearing Registration No.CH01CV5138, Chassis No.MA1NE2ZTFP6J15483 and Engine No. ZTP4J58230.

¶23

Documents executed: - Demand Notice dated 22.04.2025, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate under Bankers ’s Books of Evidence Act, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and Hon’ble Delhi High Court Judgment, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶24

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.23,71,675.10p, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 07.08.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Authorized Representative, Yes Bank Ltd., h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted

¶25

3 OA/808/2025 YES BANK LTD. VS SH.SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

¶26

to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,71,675.10p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five & Ten Paise Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.06% p.a. with monthly rests from 10.04.2025 till the date of realization. The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,71,675.10p (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five & Ten Paise Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the

¶29

¶30

OA/808/2025

¶31

YES BANK LTD. VS SH.SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

¶32

sale of hypothecated vehicle of the defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.11.2025. 5. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.10.2025 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav

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

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Chand Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhjeet Singh

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Karam Singh and Others

Bank of India versus M/S Radhika Enterprises and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Jatinder Gupta and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Balaji Literary and Charitable Society and Others