Allowed

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Shilpaa Electrical Infra Tech (India) Limited.

DRT23 Mar 2026OA/1066/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed the Original Application filed by Yes Bank Ltd. against three defendants for recovery of debt, holding them jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount along with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 7,22,16,630.68 plus future interest and costs. Recovery Certificate issued.

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Shilpaa Electrical Infra… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL'IIAT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THE 23RDDAY OF MARCH' 2026}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM.,L'LB.(HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL^{APPLICATION NO: 1066 OF 2025}

¶4

M/s. YES^{Bank Ltd.,} 2iJ FIoo.,^{H.No. 1-8-387, Agravanshi} i,"r".^"n,ioe L",^{s p n}it, secunderabad-sOoOo3 ' .... .Applica^nt. Rep.'bY^{its Authorized Signatory '}

¶5

Versus

¶6

l. M/s. Shilpaa^{Electricalhfra Tech (India)} t-imiteo.,^{nepresented by its Directors} z"o ftooi,^{3 boni BusinessComplex} Prashantinagar,^LekukatPallY nangareddY,^{Hyderabad - 500072 '}

¶7

Mr.^{GurijalaSudhakarReddY} s/o. Mr.^{GurijalaNagreddY} vitta tlo.tZt,^{Vasantha CitY, Near} Hitech^{CitY Railway Station} nuf"urP"t,^{Hyderabad- 500049'}

¶8

Also at:Mr. Guriiala^{SudhakarReddv} S/o. Mr. Gurijala^NagreddY )ii rloor,^{3 Soni Businesscomplex} Prashantinagar,^LekukatPallY nangareOOY,^{Hyderabad - 500072 '}

¶9

Permanent^{Address: -} Mr. Gurijala^{SudhakarReddy} S/o.^{Mr. GurijalaNagreddy} H.tlo.l-AO^{9, Aziz Nagar,Near} noise-poro^{ilub, Hvderabad- 500075'}

¶10

Ms.^{Sailaja Gurijala,D/o Mr'Krishna} "' ir"iJv l.liooiraivitia trto lzl' vasantha citv I\earHitech^{City RailwaY Station} i ireezpet,^{Hvdera bad - solo4e'/qY&:r</sup>}

¶11

¶12

oA.NO.1066/202s

¶13

Also at:14s. Sa ilaja Gurijala, D/o.Mr.Krishna Reddy Maddika,2nd Floor,3 Soni Business Complex, Prashantinagar, Lekukatpally Rangareddy, Hydera bad - 500072.

¶14

Permanent Address:-

¶15

lYs. Sa ilaja Gurijala, D/o.tvlr.Krishna Reddy Maddika, H.No.3-30 9, Aziz Nagar Near Horse Polo Club, Hyderabad - 500075.

¶16

..,Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant : tvr. N. B. Sudarshan Defendants : Ex-parte

¶18

:: ORDER ::

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,22,16,630.68ps from the defendants joinfly and severally with future interest @18yo p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicles.

¶20

Summons served on D1 to 3. They were set ex-parte on 18.03.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined Sai pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.19.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

I t,- ,. . t

¶25

/\ 'tY-^{-. ,t}

¶26

oA.NO.1066/2025

¶27

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and Oe hypothJcatea vehicles?

¶28

¶29

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.19 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶30

In the result, the present Original Application No.1066/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶31

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of

¶32

Rs.7,22,16,630.68ps with future interest @8.95% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶33

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

¶34

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. @'ry6't

¶35

oA.NO.1066/202s

¶36

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

¶37

lssue^{Recovery Certificate accordingly'}

¶38

1 o.^{com m u n i cate} ?^{.:i,y".1!ot,T;":iffi} ;:"*:iilx?'"^{l"o[!"Jo1it;,',} "" lDictated^{to the steno'} DaY^{of March' 2026)} < I

¶39

iii, tn" "'t

¶40

< I //.y*r-,-!t^{></sup> (RhI4-ESHwAR^KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER}

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Shilpaa Electrical Infra Tech (India) Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Shilpaa Electrical Infra Tech (India) Limited.

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

J Venkata Ramana Moorthy versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction

Bank of India versus M/s. Shree Vaibhav Pet Polymers

The Axis Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Keshapaga Anjaneyulu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank