Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. M Kondal Reddy

DRT23 Jun 2026OA/66/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application by YES Bank to recover ₹20,25,546.30 with future interest from a defaulting borrower who appeared ex parte, upholding the bank's claim over hypothecated assets and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay ₹20,25,546.30 with future interest at 15.5% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties for dues realization.

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. M Kondal Reddy — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RO DAY OF ]UNE, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORiGINAL APPLICATION No: 66 OF 2026

¶5

The YES Bank Limited Office at # 1-8-387, znd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, S.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003 Rep by its authorised signatory

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. M Kondal Reddy S/o. Raji Reddy Aged about 45 years Occ: Business R/o. H. No. 1-10-1/213Pl11, Madhura Nagar Chakrlpuram, Kushiaguda, Kapra Hyderabad - 500062

¶8

Also at: C/o. H. No. 38-83, ShopNo. 1&3 Sainikpuri X Road, Hyderabad - 500062 Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶10

Counsel for the Defendant :Ex-parte

¶11

::^qLLE& ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 20,25 t546 -3O^ps from the sole defendant with future titt the interest @ 18yo^p.a. with monthty rests ttowo;s

¶13

oA.NO.66/2026

¶14

date of realization along with costs, and in default sale of OA hypothecated vehicle.

¶15

Summon served on Sole Defendant through paper pu blication and was set exparte on 10.06.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. Sai Pavan Gudivada, Legal

¶17

Manager, as AW-1 and marked 6 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6.

¶18

Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. perused the materiat placed on record.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is: _

¶20

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

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.6 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶22

In the result, the present Original Application No.66/2026 is alowed as under: -

¶23

6+*rl

¶24

oA.NO.66/2026

¶25

i) The Sole Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a Rs. 20,25,546.30^ps with future interest @ 15.51olo 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 vehicle as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and^the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the same to realise its debU

¶27

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and^{properties of} defendant 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 within2 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 23'd Day of June, 2026).

¶32

866*"t

¶33

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. M Kondal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited v. Mr. M Kondal Reddy

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

Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Pithani Veera Raju

Hdfc Bank versus Yateesree Marketing

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Venkat Reddy Samala

M/s Union Bank of India versus M/s Manidhar Furniture Mall

Bank of Baroda versus Kalamanda Krishna

Bank of Baroda versus Panuganti Balaraj