Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Anjanadri Impex

DRT4 Nov 2025OA/857/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Original Application No. 857/2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed YES Bank's claim for recovery of Rs. 24,26,684.74 plus interest and costs against lY/s. Anjanadri Impex. and Mrs. Tata Sirisha, who were present ex-parte, upholding their joint and several liability based on unchallenged evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 24,26,684.74 with interest and costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Anjanadri Impex — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B,Com., L.LB.^{(Hons.), lvl.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Original Application No: 857 OF 2025

¶6

The 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

lY/s. Anjanadri Impex., Rep by its Partner, Mrs.Tata Sirisha Office at Flat No.102,^H.No.3-1-413 Myadams Block TNR, Shakunta^la Apts, Opp Apollo Pharmacy Kharmanghat, L B Naga^r Hydera bad District - 500079.

¶10

Mrs. Tata Sirisha,^{W/o. T.Venkata} Sivakasi, Aged^{about45 Years} Occ: Business,^{R/o.FlatNo.102} H. No.3- 1-413, Myadams^{Block TNR} Shakuntala^{Apts, Opp Apollo Pharmacy} Kharma nghat,^{L B Nagar} Hyderabad District -^500079. .... .. Defendants

¶11

Counsel^for the Applicant : M/s. M, Srinivas^ReddY :Ex-Parte Defendants

¶12

:: ORDER^::

¶13

The Applicant^{Bank filed} the^present OA^{for the recovery of a sum of} the defendants^{jointly and severally with} Rs.24,26,684.7^{4Ps frcm} N*s

¶14

¶15

OA.No.857/2025

¶16

future interest @18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from t5.07.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶17

Summons served on D1 & 2. They were set ex_parte on 31.10.2025 as called absent and no representation,

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined Sai pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.06,

¶19

Heard the Ld. counser for the Appricant Bank. perused the materiar placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A. 1to A.06 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.g5712025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.24,26,6g4.74ps with future interest @17o7o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization ./ft,*r, n U-/4"u

¶25

OA.No.857/2025

¶26

ii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against

¶27

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of November, 2025).

¶32

,*rffi, PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Anjanadri Impex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/S. Anjanadri Impex

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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S. Shanmukhi Agencies

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Thappita Janaki Raju

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus M/S Global Impex

Union Bank of India versus Mr. K. Ranganna

Icici Bank Limited versus Amba Bhavani Hotels

Canara Bank versus Mr. Sayyed Kausar Basha