Allowed

Yes Bank Limited., v. Yathakula Gopi

DRT7 Mar 2025OA/88/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Limited for recovery of dues from two defendants who remained ex-parte. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount along with future interest, costs, and affirmed rights over hypothecated vehicles and properties for debt realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.38,70,912.92 plus 13% p.a. interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and properties.

Yes Bank Limited., versus Yathakula Gopi — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OTth DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 88 OF 2024

¶5

M/S.YES Bank Limited., 2'd Floor, H. No.1-8-387, Ag ravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S. P. Road, Secunderabad-500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr.Yathakula Gopi, S/o.Mr.Saidulu, Plot No.838, NTR Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda, Tela nga na - 508213.

¶9

Mrs.Yathakula Ramana, D/o. M r. Kistaiah, Plot No.383, NTR Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508213.

¶10

. .. Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant

:M/s.N.B.Sudarshan

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: CLLLE-L ::

1, The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.38,70,912.92ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypotheca ted vehicte.TfiSp

¶17

oA.NO.88/2024

¶18

¶19

Summons sent to D1 and 2^{returnedwith endorsement} unclaimed hence, deemed to^{be served.They were set ex-parte} on 10.06.2024 as^{called absentand no representation}

¶20

The Applicant Bank^{examined D.ShyamKumar Reddy, Legal} Manaqer, as AW-1 and^marked 07^{documentsthrough him as} Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant^{Bank. 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

As stated supra, the Defendants remained^{ex-parte. The} Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the^documents viz., Exs. A.1 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^{jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant^Bank with^{futureinterest} and costs.

¶25

In the result, the^present Original Application^No.88/2024is allowed as under:^-

¶26

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.38,70,912.92ps with future interest ffi'"

¶27

oA.NO.88/2024

¶28

@13olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

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;

¶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 entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

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 07th Day of March, 2025).

¶36

//y"n (nhfi'esnwaR KorHE)

¶37

(nhfi'esnwaR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited., v. Yathakula Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited., v. Yathakula Gopi

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 M/S Avvaru Designs

Sri Gopal Auto Service versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank) versus Gandipally Anil

Yes Bank Ltd., versus Mohammed Jeelani

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Dharavath Surthi

Yes Bank Limited versus Vislavath Chitti