Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Noti Rajasekhara Reddy

DRT19 Jun 2026OA/1065/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an original application filed by YES BANK Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 20.55 lakhs with interest and costs from a defendant who remained in absentia, holding the defendant liable and directing sale of hypothecated vehicle if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 20,55,104.08 with interest and costs; hypothecated vehicle secured for realization of debt.

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Noti Rajasekhara Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1065 OF 2025

¶4

N4/S. YES BANK LTD., 2nd Floor, H. No.1-8-387, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003 Rep: By its Authorized Signatory

¶5

.......Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Noti Rajasekhara Reddy, S/o. Mr. Ramana Reddy, H. No.B-2-686/ 1/A, NBT Na9ar, Near Global Grammer High School, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, H^ydera ba d- 5 000 34

¶8

ALSO AT:

¶9

Mr. Noti Rajasekhara Reddy, H.No.8-2-685/P2 TO P5, 3rd Floor, Divine Banjara, Above Llquor Mart, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hydera bad-500034

¶10

PERIV'IANENT ADDRESS:

¶11

Mr. Noti Rajasekhara Reddy, S/o. 1.4r. Ramana Reddy, 1-24, Ayyappa Reddy, Palem Pedda, Kondur Mdl Kaligiri, Near Elementary School, Nel lore, Andhra Prcdesh- 524225

......Defendant

O'w'#

oA.NO.1065/202S

Cou nsel for the Applicant

¶16

: lvlr. N. B. Sudarshan

¶17

Counsel for the Defendant

¶18

: Ex-parte

¶19

:: ORDER ::

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 20,55,104.08 ps from the sole defendant with future interest @ 18o/o 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.

¶21

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

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Sai pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-l and marked 11 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11.

¶23

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

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶25

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

¶26

oA.NO.106s/202s

¶27

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the^{ApplicantBank} 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 Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the^present Original Application^{No.1065/2025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a Rs. 20,55,104.08^ps with future interest @ 10.01% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

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;

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶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} ihisthels'hDayof rune,2026).

¶36

//rqKrU$

¶37

(RA.O,IESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Noti Rajasekhara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Noti Rajasekhara 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

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.