Allowed

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Isarayal

DRT4 Mar 2026OA/656/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by M/s. YES Bank Limited for recovery of Rs. 24,60,460.27 plus future interest and costs from the defendant who remained ex-parte. The court held the evidence clinched the claim and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 24,60,460.27 with future interest @18% p.a. simple; applicant bank entitled to proceed against person/properties and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Isarayal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

ORIGINAL''

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE O4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026

¶5

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

¶6

Original Application No: 656 OF 2025

¶7

M/s.YES Bank Limited., Office at 1-8-387, 2ND Floor, AEravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

.....Applicant

Versus

It4r. Isarayal, S/o. Not Known to Applicant Aged about 25 Years, Occ: Business R/o. Plot No.420, Jai Ram Nagar

¶12

Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500055,

¶13

. Defendant

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant

¶15

Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy

Defendants

Ex-parte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.24,60,460.27ps from the defendant with future interest @1Bo/o p.a. with monthly rests from 26.03.2025 till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶20

Summon served on sole defendant through paper publication and was set ex-parte on 28.LL.2025 as called absent and no representatio " oY*

¶21

OA.No.656/2025

¶22

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Sai^{PavanGudivada, Legal Manager} as AW-1 and marked 06 documents^{through him as Ex. A. 1 to Ex'} A.06.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitledfor} the ctaim made in the^{OA againstthe} Defendant?

¶27

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence} affidaVf iouFted W-ith^{{h"d'rbtft'al6'ih th'd'tlbcurfibfit"svi2l)"EiEl n'r to} 4.06 marked on behalf of the^{Applicant Bank clinches the claim of} the Applicant Bank^{againstthe Defendant. Hence, I hold that the} Defendant is liable to^pay the^{OA claim to the Applicant Bank with} future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.656/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶29

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to^{the Applicant Bank a} Rs.24,60,460.27ps with future^i,nterest

¶30

sum 4f

¶31

-, @18.g$o/o^{p.a. simple, from the date of applicationtill} the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^{proceedagainst} the person and^properties of the defendant^for realization of its dues;

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. m"

¶34

¶35

oA.No.656/2025

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, iigned and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of February, 2026).

¶39

frws

¶40

(ae\q-rsn\alnR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

oopn corrrt on ihis the Odrn darr nf Eahrrrarv 2O26)

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Isarayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Isarayal

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

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Rachineni Gangadevi

Ms Thulasi Traders Rep by its Prop Thulaseewar Reddy versus Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kadiri Vinesh Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/s v N Interiors

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Gugulothu Lakshmi

Bank of India versus M/s. Venkata Ramana Laxmi Wlccs