Allowed

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Ssp Water Supply.

DRT22 Apr 2026OA/1069/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presidency Judge of the Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Ltd. against the defendant for the recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 35.81 Lakhs. The court confirmed the defendants' liability and authorized proceedings against them and their hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

The original application was allowed; the Defendants were ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 35.81,643.82 with future interest and costs; the bank was directed to issue a Recovery Certificate; and it was aut

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Ssp Water Supply. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.]I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 1069 OF 2025

¶5

M/s. YES Bank Ltd.,

¶6

2nd Floor, H.No.1-8-387, Agravanshi Plaza HUDA Lane, S.P Road, Secu nderabad-500003. .....Applicant. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

Versus

¶8

I4/s. SSP Water Supply., Represented by its Proprietor Plot No.54, Sy.No.34, Sriram Nagar Colony Suram Road, Gaju laramaram^Village Qutublapur,^{14edchal 14alkajgiri} Hyderabad - 500055.

¶9

Mr. Mantri Praveen Kumar

¶10

S/o. Mr. Damodar Mantri

¶11

Flat No.116, Star Lite Pavilion^Apartments

¶12

Patwari Enclave, Ranga Nagar

¶13

Qutublapur,^Hyderabad -^500054.

¶14

... Defenda nts

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant : [4r. N. B. Sudarshan

¶16

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶17

::^qLLE-L ::

¶18

The Applicant Bank^filed the^{present OA for the recoverya total} sum of Rs.35,81,643.82ps from the^{defendantsjointly and} severally with future interest @187o^{p.a. from the date of} application till the date of^{reallzation alongwith costs and in} default for sale of^{hypothecated vehicle. t} .* .^,

¶19

oa.No.1069/202s

¶20

¶21

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 27.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶22

The Appllcant Bank examined Sai^pavan cudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶23

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

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the D€fendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.1069/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.35.81,643.82ps with future interest @10.5% p.a. simpte from the date of application titt the date or reatization;4fuf,"r.!t

¶29

oA.NO.1069/2025

¶30

¶31

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;

¶32

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

¶33

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶34

8, The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of recelpt of this Order.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Ssp Water Supply.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Ssp Water Supply.

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/s. D G Enterprises.

Union Bank of India versus Boyapati Mahesh

State Bank of India versus Samama Aufaqui

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Mythri Techno Solutions Private Limited

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Kommu Rambabu

Icici Bank Limited versus Eligeti Satheesh Kumar