Allowed

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. v. Ms. Rudraraju Mounika

DRT23 Mar 2026OA/1071/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the recovery application filed by YES Bank Limited against Ms. Rudraraju Mounika. The Tribunal held the defendant liable for a principal sum plus future interest and costs, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The claim was secured by hypothecation of a vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,96,880.89 plus future interest @18% p.a., costs, and proceedings against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties.

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. versus Ms. Rudraraju Mounika — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RO DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.). M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLTCATION No: 1071 OF 2O2S

¶3

M/s. YES Bank Limited., H. No. 1-8-387, 2ND Floor Agravanshi^plaza, HUDA Lane S. P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶4

.....Appticant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ms. Rudraraju Mounika, D/o. Mr.Srinivasa Raju Rudraraju, Flat No.504, Omsai Kuteer Apts., Gayatri Nagar, Godavari Homes, Near St. Micheale School Quthbullapur, Hyderabad - 500055.

¶7

Also at:-

¶8

Ms. Rudraraju Mounika, D/o. Mr. Srinivasa Raju Rudraraju,^plot No.92, phase-V Near Vinayaka Temple, IDA Jeedimeua Qutubullapur, tledchal, Hyderabad - S0OO15.

¶9

... Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan Defendant : Ex_parte

¶11

:: oRDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.22,96,880.89ps from the defendant with future interest @18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecared vehicte/fu/.dt\

¶13

oA.NO.107u202s

¶14

Summon^{sent to sole defendantreturnedwith endorsement} refused hence,^{deemed to be served and was set ex-parteon} 18.03.2026^{as called absentand no representation'}

¶15

2 The Applicant^{Bank examined Sai PavanGudivada' Manager' as} AW-1 and marked^{07 documents through him as Ex'A'l to} Ex.A.07.

¶16

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

¶17

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-}

¶18

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

¶19

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remainedex-parte' The} EvidenceAffidavitcoupledwiththerecitalsinthedocuments viz., Exs.A.1 to^{A.O7 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the claim of^{the Applicant Bank againstthe Defendant'} Hence, I hold that the^{Defendantis liable to pay the OA claim to} the Applicant Bank^{with futureinterest and costs'}

¶20

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo.1071/2025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶21

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to^the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.22,96,880,89ps with future interest @11.01o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of reatization; ffirru

oA.NO.1071/202s

I I

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 entifled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entifled 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 pronorn."J tV." i, the open court on this the 23'd Day of March,2026).

¶33

.^{{, irl*l1-} .r,1-i; 'D'c5-'

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOrHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. v. Ms. Rudraraju Mounika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. v. Ms. Rudraraju Mounika

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