Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/141/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal hydroabad, in an ex-parte hearing, disposed of Original Application No. 141/2026 filed by YES Bank. Being satisfied with the evidence, the court held defendants jointly liable to pay Rs. 68,07,058.35 plus interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.68,07,058.35 with future interest and costs. Recovery certificate directed.

The Yes Bank Limited versus M/s. Sai Manikanta… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT^HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDiNG OFFICER

¶5

Original Application No: 141 OF 2026

¶6

The YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 2nd Floor, Agravanshi^Plaza HUDA Lane, S P Road, Secunderabad-soooo3. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects., Erstwhile M/s. Sai Manikanta infra^Reddy Mix Concrete., Rep by its Managing

¶10

Partner Mr. Segonda Srinivas, Office^at 2-4-975, Gokul Nagar, Old^BusDepot Hanumakonda, Warangal -^506001.

¶11

Mr. Segonda Srinlvas, S/o.^Ramulu Aged about 49 Years, Occ:^Business R/o. H.No. 2-4-975,^{Gokul Nagar,Old} Bus Depot, Hanumakonda,^Warangal -^506001.

¶12

......Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: SLLD-LL ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.68,07,058.35ps from the^{defendantsjointlyand severallywith} future interest @180/o P.a.^{compoundedwith monthly rests from} 16.09.2025 till the date of^{realisation along with cost9.} ^. ffiss"

¶18

OA.No.141/2026

¶19

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 20.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

The Applicant Bank examined Sai Pavan cudivada, Legal Manager as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.08.

¶21

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

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants?

¶24

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence AFfidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.08 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.14112026 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.68,07,058.35ps with future interest @9.75olo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of reatizationlf,Ur:rr-\

¶27

OA.No.141l2026

¶28

¶29

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for

¶30

realization of its dues;

¶31

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate according ly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27rh day of April, 2026).

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited v. M/s. Sai Manikanta Infra Projects.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

srikarampullaiah versus Canara Bank

Ms Hsc Construction and Others versus Union Bank of India

Nalam Narasimha Rao versus Icici Bank Limited

Indian Bank versus Mr. Papagari Subhash Chandra

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Faheemullah Khan

Karre Radha versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.