Allowed

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Venkateshwara Transportation

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/657/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery. The defendants remained ex-parte. The tribunal held the defendants liable to pay the claimed sum with future interest, costs, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate based on hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants liable to pay Rs. 67,23,407.89 plus interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Venkateshwara Transportation — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com. L,LB. (HonS.), 14.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 657 OF 2025

¶5

M/S. YES BANK LTD., 2nd Floor, H.No.1-8-387, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Represented By its Authorized Signatory

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Venkateshwara Transportation,

¶9

Represented by its Proprletor,

¶10

Mr. Beeram Narendar Reddy,

¶11

Vaishnavi Infra, Old Gayatri Nagar Road, Plot No.19, Flat No.107, Near Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy Temple,

¶12

K.V. Rangareddy - 500097.

¶13

Mr. Beeram Narendar Reddy, S/o. lvlr. Beeram Yadl Reddy,

¶14

Plot No.19, Flat No.107,

¶15

Vaishnavi Infra, Old Gayatri Nagar Road, Saroornagar, Rangareddy, Telanqana - 500097.

¶16

...Defendants

¶17

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

¶18

Counsel for the Defendants :^Ex-parte ffia*

¶19

oA.NO.6571202s

¶20

:: ORDER ::

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs, 67,23,407.89 ps with future interest @18o/o p,a. from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and, in default, sale of OA hypothecated assets.

¶22

Summon served on defendants and were set exparte on 13.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶23

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Sai Pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 9 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9.

¶24

Heard ex-parte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶26

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and O/ hypothecated assets?

¶27

6, As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.9 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶28

In the result, the presenloriginal Application No.657l2025 is attowed as uno.r, - Qffi*

¶29

oA.NO.557/202s

¶30

i) The Defendants are liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 67,23,407.89^ps with future interest @130/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly'

¶36

lu, Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned.}

¶37

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 26th Day of February,^2025).

¶38

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Venkateshwara Transportation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Venkateshwara Transportation

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

Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus M/s Pragati Marbles

State Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Bharath Enterprises

Indian Bank versus M/s. Ganapathi Mobile Marketing

Canara Bank versus M/s. Modern and General Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Nayana Gadangandla

M/S. State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Subrahmanya Jewellers (Borrower)