Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Pottigari Srinivas Reddy

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/95/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's recovery application ex-parte as defendants ignored summons. The court held defendants jointly liable to pay dues with interest and costs, recognizing the bank's right to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Dutants jointly liable to pay Rs. 22,15,394.38 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against vehicle and properties; costs awarded.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Pottigari… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF ]ULY, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLiCATION No: 95 OF 2025

¶4

M/s.YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 3'd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Pottigari Srinivas Reddy S/o. Mr. Vishwanath Reddy 2-53, Tondapalli Village, Tondapalli Chityal, K V Rangareddy, Hyderabad Telangana - 501501.

¶8

Mrs. Pottigari Sugunamma W/o. Mr. Narsireddy, H. No.2-53 Parigi Mandalam, Tondapalle Chityal,Hyderabad,Telangana-501-501. .....Defendants

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. N.B.Sudarshan Defendants : Ex-parteEx-parte

¶10

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA for the recovery a totar sum of Rs.22,15,394.38ps from the defendanis jointly and severally with future interest @1Bo/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 13.09.2024 tiil the date of rearization arong with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle. !1 4^{tw) /.r -}

¶13

oA.NO.95/2025

¶14

Summons served on^{D1 and 2' Theywere set ex-parteon} 11.06.2025 as called^{absentand no representation.}

¶15

The Applicant Bank^examined Sai Pavan Gudivada,^Legal 07 documents through^himas

¶16

Manager, as AW-1^{and marked} Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶17

A Ld. Counsel for^{the APPlicant} Bank reported orders^{maY be} passed through merits'^Perused the material^{placed on record'}

¶18

The^point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶19

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendants and^{OA hypothecated} vehicle?

¶20

As stated supra,^{the Defendants remained ex-parte'The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs. A,1 to^{A.07 markedon behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the^{claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I^{hold that the Defendantsare jointlyand severallyliable} to^pay the^{OA claim to the Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶21

In the result,^{the present Original ApplicationNo'95/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendants^{are jointly and severally} liable to^pay to^{the Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.22,15,394.38ps^{with future interest} @10'600/o^{p'a' simple from the date of} application^{till the date of} 'eali'atio'fu.f,

¶23

oA.NO.95/202s

¶24

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;

¶25

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

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶29

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 25'h Day of July, 2025).

¶30

PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Pottigari Srinivas Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Pottigari Srinivas Reddy

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Milligram Laboratories

Central Bank of India versus Lachu Cement Bricks Unit

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammed Tahir

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)