Allowed

The Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Raghupati Enterprises.

DRT12 Mar 2026OA/726/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-II at Hyderabad allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of Rs. 21,46,368.01 with future interest and costs by ex-parte order, holding defendants jointly and severally liable based on documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to jointly pay Rs. 21,46,368.01 with future interest; directing issue of Recovery Certificate; directing applicant to file cost memo.

The Yes Bank Limited. versus M/s. Raghupati Enterprises. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF I\4ARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIVIESHWAR KOTHE, B.CoM,, L.LB.^{(HONS.),N4.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Original Application No: 726 OF 2025

¶6

The YES Bank Limited., Otfice at 1-8-387, 2nd Floor Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane S.P Road, Secunderabad - 500003. Rep, by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

lvl/s. Raghupati Enterprises.,

¶10

A Proprietary Concern, Represented by

¶11

Its Proprietor, Mr. Giriraj Bung, Office At Ground Floor, Shop No.22, 59-258

¶12

& 259, Santokh Towers, Beside Agarwal

¶13

Chambers, Kingkoti, Abids,^Hyderabad -^500001.

¶14

Mr. Giriraj Bun9, S/o. Shyam Sunder Ban9, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: ProP. Of l4/s. Raghupati Enterprises

¶15

R/o. H.No.14-1-474, Opp SBI Bank^Lane Darussalam Branch, Aghapura^Panmandi ......Defendants

¶16

Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001.

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M. Srinivas^Reddy

Defendants

: Exparte

::^g-LD_LL ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^{present OA for the recovery of a sum of} Rs.21,46,368.01ps from the defendants iointly^{and severallywith} future interest @18Vo^p.a. from 18.06.2025 till^{the date of} realisation along with costs.^{1nlt"..,.,</sup> .-.) 5 P \L'}

¶22

OA.No.72612025

¶23

Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were' set ex-parte on 04.L2.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶24

2 The Applicant Bank examined Sai Pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager as AW-l and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A. 1 to Ex. 4,7,

¶25

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

¶26

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.726/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶30

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.21,46,368.01ps with future interest @16.50lo p.a. simple, from the date of apptication ti[ the date ot reatizationfu*

¶31

OA,No.72612025

¶32

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for rea lization of its dues;

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of M arch,2026l.

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

The Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Raghupati Enterprises.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Yes Bank Limited. v. M/s. Raghupati Enterprises.

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

Thupakula Narasaiah versus Indian Bank

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Nand Kishor

Indian Bank versus M/s Systems Steels

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Shama Enterprises.

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Siva Rama Krishna Traders.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kishore Kumar Manikonda