Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Batula Samuel Prashant

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/449/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the debt recovery application filed by Yes Bank Limited against Batula Samuel Prashant for Rs. 26.7 lakhs with interest and costs, permitting recovery through the sale of hypothecated vehicle. The respondent appeared ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,70,851.25 with interest; authority to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendant's properties; costs awarded.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Batula Samuel Prashant — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TR]BUNAL.II^{AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE,²⁰²⁶ PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No:^{449 OF 2026}

¶3

M/S.YES Bank Limited., 1-8-387, HUDA Lane,^{Agravanshi Plaza} 2nd Floor, S P Road,^{Secunderabad-soooo3.} Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶4

... ..Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Batula Samuel Prashant,^{S/o. Dumas} Batula Robinson,^{Age 49 Years} Occ: Pvt. Service,^{Plot No. 14 5 4 75} R and D Defence Colony,^{Sri Puri Colony} Road, Kakaguda,^{Karkahana, Hyderabad} Telangana - 500015.

¶7

Also at:^- Batula Samuel^{Prashant,S/o. Dumas} Batula Robinson,^{Age 49 Years} Occ: Pvt. Service,^{C/o. Silabs India Pvt Ltd.,} Salarpuria Sattva,^{KnowledgeCity Octave3} Parcel 4, 2nd and^{3rd Floor, Raidurgam} ... Defendant Hyderabad, Telangana -^500074-

¶8

Counsel for the^APP|icant : M/s. Lotus Law^Associates

Defenda nt

: Ex-parte

:: O-LLLL^::

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present oA for the recovery a total} sum of Rs.26,70,851.25ps^{from the defendantwith future} interest @16.13olo^{p.a. compoundedwith monthly rests from} the date of application^{till the date of realizatlonalong with} costs and in default^{for sale of hypothecatedvehicle}

¶13

oA.NO.449/2026

¶14

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 23.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined D Shyam Kumar Reddy, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 06 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.06.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

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

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.06 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.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.449l2026 is allowed as under: -

¶21

i) The Defendant is tiabte to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.26,70,851.25ps with future interest @16.01olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of rearization; fuU|rt

¶22

oA.NO.449l2026

¶23

¶24

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;

¶25

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

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{parties concerned.} thisthe24thDayof (Dictated to the steno, corrected, June,2026). signed and^pronounced by me in the open^{court on}

¶30

/flryffin* lnAm(snwnR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Batula Samuel Prashant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Limited v. Batula Samuel Prashant

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna

Canara Bank versus M/s. MD Rafi Boiler Poultry Farm

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nehemiah

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.