Allowed

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Anthony Paul Solomon

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application by Yes Bank Ltd. to recover Rs. 33 lakhs plus interest and costs from individual defendants. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable and entitled the bank to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 33,01,088.48 with future interest and costs allowed. Entitlement to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and defendants' properties granted.

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Anthony Paul Solomon — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), [4.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 606 OF 2025

¶4

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

¶5

.....Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Anthony Paul Solomon S/o. Mr. Clment Solomon, 10-1-843 Flat No.204, Nazeer Plaza, A C Guards Near Mahavir Hospital, Khairatabad Hydera bad - 500004.

¶8

Mr. Harry Bernard Solomon

¶9

S/o. Mr. Clment Solomon, 10-1-843

¶10

Flat No.204, Nazeer Plaza, A C Guards Near Ma havir Hospital, Khairatabad ... Defendants Hyderabad - 500004.

¶11

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

¶12

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

:: qLqEL ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.33,01,088.48ps from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @18o/o^p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs andⁱⁿ default for sale of hypothecated vehicle. l\ . . -:-. ^,,'

¶15

oA.NO.605/2025

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined D Shyam Kumar Reddy, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶19

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

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

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

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendants 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 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.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.606/2025 ls allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.33,01,088.48ps with future interest @11.50o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date or redization.fis|:t\

¶25

oA.NO.506/202s

¶26

¶27

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;

¶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 Memo 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 25th Day of June, 2025). fu<^*

¶33

((,/ !9Db'-

¶34

(RAYESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Anthony Paul Solomon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Anthony Paul Solomon

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