Allowed

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Mahabub Ali

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/605/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a principal sum, future interest, and costs against the defaulting borrowers, who remained absent, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 24.23 lakhs with future interest at 11.75% p.a. and costs; directed to proceed against vehicle and properties; issue of Recovery Certificate.

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Mahabub Ali — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 605 OF 2025

¶5

M/s. YES Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, H. No.1-8-387, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P Road, Secu ndera bad-500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Mahabub Ali, S/o. lYr. Ahmad Ali H.No.2-2, Kondapur l.4a ndal, Near Majeed, Harinaspur, Medak Telangana - 502295.

¶9

Mrs. Reshama Maha bub

¶10

Wo.^{Mr. Mahabub Ali, H.No.2-2} Konda pur Mandal, Near Majeed Harinaspur, Medak, Tela ngana- 502295.

¶11

...Defendants

¶12

: I4r. N. B. Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

:: O-LD-L& ::

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.24,23,730.33ps from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @187o p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in defautt for sate of hypothecateo verricle.

;flvq6.05f.\

oA.NO,605/202s

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 75.04.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶23

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

¶24

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Amdavit 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 Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.605/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶26

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.24,23,730.33ps with future interest @11.75%^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of re zarioni(7vl$a\

¶27

oA.NO.60s/2025

¶28

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;

¶29

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

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the^costs.

¶31

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

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 25th Day of June, 2026).

¶34

Sf,q'ur SHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Mahabub Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Mahabub Ali

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Valuva.

Bank of Baroda versus varikuppala prasad

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mr. Gantasala Siva Ramakrishna

Canara Bank versus M/S.Farmdean Hospitality LLP

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sampangi Nagalakshmamma

Hdfc Bank versus Nadida Ipathi Reddy