Allowed

Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Pithani Veera Raju

DRT22 Jun 2026OA/232/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the bank seeking recovery. The court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed amount with future interest and costs, and entitled the bank to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle and defendant's other properties.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendant to pay Rs. 25,44,906.66 with future interest and costs. Ordered recovery from hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties. Recovery certificate issued.

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Pithani Veera Raju — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 232 OF 2026

¶5

YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 2ND Floor Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Pithani Veera Raju, S/o. Sri Rama Murthy, Aged about 50 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.7-37l14C, Plot No. 203 Subash Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad-500018.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

R/o. H.No,7-1-282/C 51, Sti Ram Nagar colony. Balkampet, Hyderabad-500018.

¶11

... Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy Defendant : Ex-parte

¶13

:: CLLD-E& ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank flled the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.25,44,906.66ps from the defendant with future interest @18olo p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 02.L2.2025 till the date of realization along with^costs andⁱⁿ defautt for sate of hypothecateO ,ehicte@p.(t$

¶15

oa,No,23212026

¶16

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 19.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Sai Pavan Gudivada, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.07.

¶18

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

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

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

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant 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 Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.23212026 is allowed as under: -

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.25,44,906.66ps with future interest @16.01olo p.a. slmple from the date of application till the date of realization; Ow,*

¶24

oA.NO.23212026

¶25

¶26

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;

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d Day ofJune,2026).

¶32

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Pithani Veera Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. Pithani Veera Raju

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.