Allowed

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Ratnashila Granites.

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/648/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a debt. The court held respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum along with future interest and costs, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 58,98,969.10plus future interest at 11.5% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 648 OF 2025

¶4

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

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Ratnashila Gra n ites., Rep by its Managing Partner Mr. Chandupatla Santosh Reddy, SA 501 H.No.2/91/59Sai Amu,Residency, White Field, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500044.

¶7

Mr. Chandupatla Santosh Reddy S/o. Mr. Raji Reddy, A/a 64 Years Occ: Self Employed, R/o. H. No.1-9-669/A/ 16 Sai Amu Residency, Hyderabad - 500044.

¶8

... Defendants

¶9

: I\4r. N. B. Sudarshan Counsel for the Applicant

¶10

Defendants : Ex-Pa rte

¶11

:: qLLq& ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the^{recovery a total} sum of Rs.58,98,969.1ops from the^{defendantsjointly and} severally 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 assets.^th"...1r' - lt''

¶13

¶14

oA.NO.648/202s

¶15

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 27.1L.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Sai pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 05 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.05.

¶17

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

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assets ?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupred with the recitars in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.05 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 craim to the Appricant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.64812025 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.58,98,969.10ps with jyture interest I t t"t ' . ._''':.,^,., ]-'.

¶23

oA.N0.648l202s

¶24

¶25

@11.51o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

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 29th Day of January, 2026).

¶32

fiw"

¶33

(RA#,IESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Ratnashila Granites.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Ratnashila Granites.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Singh Rathore versus Union Bank of India

Harinath Pendyala versus Axis Bank

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Mr. Ayathulla Khan

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Marri Krishna Reddy

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Amgothu Shekhar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Kumbam Tirupataiah