Allowed

Yes Bank Limited v. Nukam Narsimha

DRT28 Mar 2025OA/85/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Limited to recover Rs.28,69,889.96 plus interest and future interest from two respondents jointly and severally. The court upheld the bank's claim and sanctioned recovery via hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Directing payment of Rs.28,69,889.96 with future interest; entitled to realize dues from hypothecated vehicle and respondents' properties; to file cost memo.

Yes Bank Limited versus Nukam Narsimha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRES]DING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 85 OF 2024

¶4

M/S.YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 2No Ftoor, Agravansh i Plaza, HUDA Lane, S. P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.... .Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

t. Mr.Nukam Narsimha, s/o.Mr.Pentaiah, 2-21, Padakal, Talakondapalle, Rangareddy, Mahaboobnagar, Telanga na - 509408.

¶8

Mrs.Nukam Manjula, D/o.Mr.Venkataiah, 2-21, Padakal, Ta lakonda palle, Rangareddy, Mahaboobnagar, Telangana - 509408.

¶9

...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

:M/s.N.B.Sudarshan

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: qLLL& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.28,69,889.96ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o from the date of

¶16

p. a. No'*

¶17

oA.NO.8s/2024

¶18

application till the date of^{realizatlonalongwith costs and in} default for sale of hypothecated^vehicle.

¶19

Summons served on D1 and^{2. Theywere set ex-parteon} 25.06.2024 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶20

The Applica nt Bank examined D.Shyam Kumar Reddy,^Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through^himas Ex.A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶21

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

¶22

The^point that arises for consideration^is:-

¶23

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

¶24

6, As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled wlth the recitals ln the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.07 marked on behalf of the^{ApplicantBank} clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against^{the Defendants.} Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future^interest and costs.

¶25

In the result, the^present Original Application No.85/2024^is allowed as under:^-

¶26

l) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of fut*

¶27

oA.NO.85/2024

¶28

Rs.28,69,BB9.96ps with^{future interest} @11olo P.a.^{simPle from thedate of} application till^{the date of realization;}

¶29

ii) the OA claim^{issecured 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;}

¶30

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

¶31

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶34

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 28tn^{Day of March,2025.}

¶35

PRESIDING^OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited v. Nukam Narsimha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited v. Nukam Narsimha

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

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