Allowed

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai

DRT8 Jan 2026OA/1008/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Yes Bank against Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai. Finding the default uncontradicted as the respondent was absent, the Tribunal held the respondent liable to pay the claimed sum with interest and costs, and authorized recovery via hypothecation of the vehicle and against other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 42,78,471.91 with 9.5% interest; claim secured by hypothecated vehicle; entitlement to proceed against other properties; costs awarded.

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE OSTH DAY OF ]ANUARY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1008 OF ZO25

¶4

M/s.YES Bank Limited. office at 1-B-387, zi6 itoor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai Proprietrix of M/s, B Link Cosmetics Shop No.G3, Ground Floor, g-3_945/K/L LSY Estates, Bata Showroom Lane Ameerpet, Hyderabad _ 500073.

¶8

Also at:-

¶9

Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai P.roprietrix of M/s. B Link Cosmetics V.illa No.49g, My Home Ankura, Near Meru International School, Tellapur Sangareddy, Hyderabad _ 50205r.

¶10

... Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant

¶12

: Mr. N. B. Sudarshan

Defendant

; Ex-parte

:: oRDER ;:

t. TheAppricantBan s u m o r *, o r,, rl. _',),1:^{i:: ?ff ' :;^ :""'," lil"JffiI} ;;:,.: interest @18o/o p.a. with monthry rests from the date of apptication till the of reatization ap default for sale and in rypothecated ,uniaufficosts ",,^n.::::

¶17

oA.NO.1008/202s

¶18

Summon served on^{sole defendant and was set ex-parte} on 07.07.2026^{as called absent and no representation'}

¶19

Sai Pavan Gudivada,^Legal

¶20

The Appticant^Bankexamined OB documents^{through him as}

¶21

Manager, as AW-l^{and marked} Ex.A.1 to^Ex.A.08.

¶22

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the Applicant Bank Perused the} material Placed^{on record.}

¶23

The^point that^{arises for considerationis:-}

¶24

Whether^{the Applicant Bank is entitted} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendant^{and OAhYPothecated} vehicle?

¶25

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remainedex-parte' The} Evidence Amdavit^{coupledwith the recitalsin the documents} viz., Exs.A.1^{to A.OB marked on behalf of the ApplicantBank} clinches the^{claimof the Applicant Bank agalnstthe Defendant'} Hence, I^{hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the oA claim to} the Appllcant^{Bank with future interest and costs'}

¶26

In the^{result,the present Original APplication No'1008/2025is} allowed^{as under: -}

¶27

The^{Defendant is liable toPay to the}

¶28

i) Applicant^{Bank a sum of Rs'42'78'471'91ps} with^{future interest@9'5o/op'a' simple from-} the^{date o1 uootir"fiwi:\the date or} realization; U^**-"

¶29

oA.No.looslzozs

¶30

¶31

ii)^{the OA claim issecuredbY waY of} hypothecation^{of vehicle described in the} schedule^{annexed tothe OA and the} appticant^{bank is entitled to proceed against} the^{same to realise its debt;}

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

B. TheApplicantBankisdirectedtofileCostMemowithin2weeks from^{the date of receipt of this Order'}

¶36

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶37

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} (Dictated to the steno,^{corrected,signedand pronouncedby me in the open court on} this the 08th^{DaY of JanuarY, 20261.}

¶38

PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Ms. Koripalli Kiran Mai

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Munipratap Gedi

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hosiery World

Bank of India versus Sri Nampalli Teja Prasanna Rajesh

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Şree Balaji Ready Mix Concrete

Idbi Bank versus Chendil Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Vallapu Ashoka