Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Sarala Clearing Agencу.

DRT28 Jan 2026OA/482/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OTP 482/2025 in DRT-II Hyderabad. Bank sought Rs.38,45,696.24 plus interest from defendants. Defendants remained ex-parte. Court held claim clinched and allowed recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.38,45,696.24 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicles and respondents' properties; recovery certificate issued.

The Yes Bank Limited. versus M/s. Sarala Clearing Agencу. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2BTH DAY OF JANUARY , 2026 ,RESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHEI B,Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

The^yES Bank Limited., Office at #1_8_387, 2nd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.p Road, Selunderabad _ vvvvvJ 500003, Rep. by its Authorized Signaiory .Applicant. Versus

¶4

M/s. Sarala Ctearing Agency., Represented by its proprietor Mrs. Goud Shilpa Korpol, g_7_LSO/Z Maruthi Nagar,_Champapet, Rangareddy Hyderabad - 500059.

¶5

Mr. Kalal Venu prakash Goud S/o. Mr. Korpol parmanandam Plot No.113, Road No.4, pathu Nagar Near Community Hall, Balapur X Road RCI Road, Badangpet, Kanchanbagh K V Rangareddy, Hyderabad - 50005g.

¶6

. .. Defendants

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan Defendants : Ex-parte

¶8

rhe Appricant Bank ;;".1:;-t oA ror the recovery a total sum of Rs.38,45,696.24ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @1go/o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization aloqg with costs and in defautt for sate of hypothecated vehictesl/)6tU

¶9

oA.NO.482/2025

¶10

Summons^{served on D1 and 2 throughpaperpubliaetionThey} were set^{ex-parte on 23'Og '2025 as called absentand no} representation.

¶11

The^{Applicant BankexaminedSai PavanGudivada'Legal} Manager,^{as AW-1and marked 11 documentsthrough himas} Ex. A,1 to^{Ex. A 11'}

¶12

l-ieard the^{Ld' Counselfor the AppllcantBank' Perused the} material Placed^{on record'}

¶13

The^point that^{arises for considerationis:-}

¶14

Whether the^{Applicant Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendants^{and OA hypothecated} vehicles?

¶15

As^{stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitalsin the documents} viz., Exs. A.1^{to A.11 markedon behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the^{claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants'} Hence, I hold^{that the Defendants are jointly and seYerally liable} to^pay the^{OA claimto the Applicant Bank with futureinterest} and costs.

¶16

In the result,^{the present Original Application No 48212025is} allowed as under:^-

¶17

i) The Defendants are^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank a sum of} Rs.38,45,696.24ps with^{futureinterest} )*" -,., '-' -i6u)r'

¶18

oA.NO.482/202s

¶19

¶20

@11% p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶21

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicles described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶22

Ir) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶23

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

¶24

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶25

Comrhunicate 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 28th Day of January, 2025). --*t

¶26

%tt

¶27

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Sarala Clearing Agencу.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Sarala Clearing Agencу.

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 Smt. Uduthala Janakamma

Icici Bank Limited versus Vaka Chandra Shekar Reddy

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Nagalla Rakesh

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Gulshan Fancy Sarees Center.

Bank of Baroda versus Laxmi

The Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Mohammad Mansoor