Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Yateesree Marketing

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/231/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by HDFC Bank Limited. against three defaulters. The court held the respondents jointly liable to pay the dues secured by hypothecated assets, with future interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly liable to pay Rs.76,90,897.08 with future interest; claim secured by hypothecated assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank versus Yateesree Marketing — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22NO DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 231 OF 2026

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited., Bank House, Department for Special Operations, H.No.6-3-246 & 6-3-244/ A 3'd Floor, Roxana Palladium, Road No.1 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Yateesree Marketing., Rep by its Partners, H.No.13-6-446/5/4 Gudimalkapur, Near IMAX Functional Hall, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500028.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

M/s. Yateesree Marketing., Rep by its Partners

¶11

H. No.13-6-445/3, KRKM Gardens, Konijeti Enclave Gudimalkapur, Near IMAX Functional Plaza, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500028.

¶12

Mr. Kuriti Aravlnd Kumar S/o. K. Jagannadha Rao, Age Major Gender Male, H.No.l0-47 5/2/ I Prem Vijaya Nagar Colony, Beside Venkateshwara Apa rtments, Mirjalguda Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500047.

¶13

Viveka Kuriti, Wo. K. Aravind Kumar Age Major, Gender Female H.No.lO-475/2/1, Prem Vijaya Nagar Colony, Beside Venkateshwara Apartments Mirjalguda,Malkajgiri,Hyderabad-500047. ...Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

: Mr. Alluri Krishnam Raju

Defenda nts

:Ex-parte

Wot"

oA.NO.231/2026

:: !)3DE& ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.76.80,897.08ps as on 01.01.2026 from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o^p.a. with monthly rests from 02.O1.2026 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶23

Summons served on D1 to 3 through^{paper publication.} They were set ex-parte on 19.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶24

The Applicant Bank examined Srikanth Sukhavasi, Asst. Vice President, as AW-1 and marked 20 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.20.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the materia I placed on record.

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶27

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

¶28

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.20 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. ffi*o

¶29

oA.NO.231l2026

¶30

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.231l2026 is allowed as under: -

¶32

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.76,90,897.08ps with future interest @11.50% 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 assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶34

iii) the appticant bank is also enti ed to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues;

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs. 8. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

10 :.?[,r',:';?t:.:"::il"::"tl]: order ro the parties concerned. ,n,',n" r, or, o, i,1;;;;'","' '^{t""'dndp'onounced} bv rne rn rha opcn co,, i on

¶38

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESID]NG OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Yateesree Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Yateesree Marketing

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

Mr Yempalla Mahipal Reddy versus Union Bank of India

Sri Perumandla Kishan versus M S Ikf Home Finance

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus M/s. Nakoda Shopping Mall.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Veluri Vamshkrishna

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hygiene Retail India Private Ltd.