Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., v. Mr. Rangannagari Raghu

DRT19 Jun 2026OA/1063/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 23.63 lakh with interest and costs against defendant Mr. Rangannagari Raghu, who appeared ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 23,63,272.23 with future interest @ 14.50% p.a., bank entitled to sell hypothecated vehicle and proceed against defendant's properties, and costs awarded.

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Rangannagari Raghu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1063 OF 2025

¶5

M/S. YES BANK LTD., 2nd Floor, H. No.1-8-387, Ag ravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003 Rep: By its Authorized Signatory

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Rangannagari Raghu, S/o. Mr. Surender Rao, Flat No.205, Tirumalagiri Cross Road, Tirumalagiri, Hydera bad - 500015.

¶8

ALSO AT:

¶9

Mr. Rangannagari Raghu, C/o. Harmya Designs, Flat No.403, Tirumalagiri Cross Road, Maitri Apartments, Secunderabad, Hyderabad-500015

¶10

......Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applica nt : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan

¶12

Counsel for the Defendant

: Ex-parte

k'tt'$

oA.NO.1063/2025

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 23,63,272.23 ps from the sole defendant with future interest @ 18% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs, and in default, sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶18

Summon served on Sole Defendant through paper publication and was set exparte on 18.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Sai pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 7 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7.

¶20

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.7 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Appticant Bank wirh future interest anO costs.//)ffi,t:\

¶24

oA.NO.1063/202s

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.1063/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a Rs. 23,63,272,23 ps with future interest @ 14.50o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶27

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

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 19th Day of June, 2026).

¶33

Ow,"* (RkMESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., v. Mr. Rangannagari Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., v. Mr. Rangannagari Raghu

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 Doraswamy Mohan Rohit Das

Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Voodi Sravani

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd., versus M/s. Fast Dot

Bank of Baroda versus Raj Trading

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Malgi Reddy Govardhan Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Vijeka Logistics Pvt. Ltd.