Allowed

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Nagendra Ravi Kumar Vithanala

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/486/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Ltd. against an ex-parte defendant. The court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed amount with future interest, securing the claim via hypothecated vehicle, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 23,38,498.27 with 14% p.a. simple interest and costs; OA secured by hypothecated vehicle; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Nagendra Ravi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O4IH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 486 OF 2025

¶5

M/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

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Nagendra Ravi Kumar Vithanala S/o. Mr. Ramachirangeevi Vithanala 11-4-699, Red Hills, Lakdikapool Near Hanuman Temple, Khairatabad Hyderabad - 500004.

¶9

Also at:-

¶10

Mr. Nagendra Ravi Kumar Vithanala C/o. Mithril Tele Communications Pvt. Ltd., 5-5-1261t, Plot No.55, Near D Mart Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500070.

¶11

.. . Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

-O'eTenO-bnt^'

¶14

: Mr. N. B. Sudarshan

¶15

: Ex-parte

¶16

:: ORDER ::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA forthe^{recovery a total} sum of Rs.23,38,498.27ps from the defendant^{with future} interest @18o/o p.a. compounded with monthly^{rests from the} date of application till the date of^{realization along with costs} and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicte.lQft6rt

¶18

oA.NO.486/2025

¶19

¶20

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 04.11.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.486/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.23,38,498.27ps with future interest @14olo p.a, simple from the date of appticatipn ti the date of reatization; k"*

¶28

¶29

oA.NO.485/2025

¶30

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;

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

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 04th Day of February, 2026).

¶36

ffi"'* ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Nagendra Ravi Kumar Vithanala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Nagendra Ravi Kumar Vithanala

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

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd. versus T. Sudhakar Goud

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sigma Containers.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Hundred Lab Services.

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Gajjela Vasantha

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Shaik Madeena Irshad

M/s.Yes Bank Limited., versus Mr. Habeeb Ali Shoeb