Allowed

M/s.Yes Bank Limited., v. Mr. Mohammed Dawood

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/475/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank'sOriginal Application for recovery of debt against a defaulting defendant. The court held the defendant liable to pay the principal sum along with future interest and costs, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs.29,31,665.37 plus future interest; OA allowed; Recovery Certificate directed to be issued.

M/s.Yes Bank Limited., versus Mr. Mohammed Dawood — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB. (HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 475 OF 2025

¶4

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

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Mohammed Dawood, S/o. Mohammed Ayub, Aged about 35 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.42-87011, Bagh-E-Hydri, Near Moula Ali Kaman, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri Hyderabad - 500040.

¶8

Also at:c/o. H. No.1- 10-98/5/1, Manasarovar Dwarakadas Housing Society Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500016.

¶9

...Defendant

¶10

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

¶11

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶12

:: ORDER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.29,31,665.37ps from the defendant with future interest @18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 05.02.2025 till the date of realizauon along with costs and in defautt for sate of hypothecated vehrctfur'#t\

¶14

oA.NO.47sl202s

¶15

¶16

Summon served on sole defendant "unclaimed" and was set exparte on 04.09.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Sai Pavan Gudivada,^Manager,as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex.A.l^to Ex.A.09.

¶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.09 marked on behalf of the^{ApplicantBank} 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^{futureinterestand costs.}

¶22

In the result, the^{present OriginalApplication No.47512025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to^the Applicant Bank a sum of^{Rs.29,31,665.37ps} with future interest @8olo^{p'a. simple from} the date of application till the^{date of} realization; firy'*rx

¶24

¶25

oA.NO.47sl2025

¶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 according ly.

¶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 19th Day of February, 2026).

¶32

//%,^ (RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s.Yes Bank Limited., v. Mr. Mohammed Dawood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Yes Bank Limited., v. Mr. Mohammed Dawood

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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Veldi Ramesh Fruits Merchants.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Vijaya Surya Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajmeera Suguna

Sree Parmeswara Co. and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Bharat Iti Mr S Rajashekar Reddy versus Wardhaman Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Vedighar Nagaraju