Allowed

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Syed Ghouse

DRT14 Aug 2026OA/558/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Yes Bank Limited against Syed Ghouse. The court held the defendant liable based on evidence filed and deemed service. The bank was awarded principal amount, interest, and the right to enforce penal clauses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant bank was awarded Rs. 21,62,971/- with future interest @15.50%p.a., allowed to realize dues via the hypothecated vehicle and applicant's properties, and directed to file cost memorandum w

Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Syed Ghouse — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 558 OF 2026

¶4

YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 2^o Floor, Agravanshi^ptaza HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 5OOOO3. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Syed Ghouse, S/o. Syed Abdullah Rasheed, Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No. 16-8-667, CIB Quarters, New Malakpet, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500024.

¶8

Also at: -

¶9

C/o. H.No. 164-4 (16-8-667) New Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500024. ...Defendant

¶10

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

¶11

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶12

:: qLqER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank Filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs,21,62,977/- frcm the defendant with future interest @18o/o^p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶14

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement refused hence, deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 13.08.2026 as ca ed absent and no representationl4t($$

¶15

oA.NO.558/2026

¶16

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.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant^{Bank. Perusedthe} material^placed on record.

¶18

The^point that arises^{for consideration is:-}

¶19

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA^hYqothecated vehicle?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the^{recitalsln the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to 4.06 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 claimto} the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.558/2026is} allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,62,971l- with future interest @15.51o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the e%"rrY

oA.NO.ss8/2026

applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶28

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

¶29

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

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 14,h Day of Ausust, 2026).

¶33

I^{\r",nr _^..,rli} \u'<sup>'[ ''

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDiNG OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Syed Ghouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Syed Ghouse

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

City Union Bank Ltd. versus M/s Sree Gopala Krishna Flour and Oil Mill

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Raja Plastic Industries

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Mr. Dukka Rajesh Kumar

M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited. versus M/s. Hoya Enterprises.

M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited. versus M/s. Payzigo Fintech Private Limited.

Yes Bank Limited. versus v Murali Krishna