Allowed

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Avinash C

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/815/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Debt Recovery Tribunal application filed by YES Bank Limited for recovery of dues from the defendant. The court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed sum with interest and costs based on examlated evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendant is liable to pay Rs.23,40,960.91 with future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued; applicant entitled to proceed against defendant's properties.

Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Avinash C — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 25IH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No: 815 OF 2025

¶4

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

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Avinash C, S/o. Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy Chillakuru, Flat No. 81, 6-3-629/2, Kahir Nivas, Ravindra Nagar, Khairatabad Hyderabad - 500004.

¶8

Also at:Mr. Avinash C 4th Floor, Plot No.3, Rohini Layout Hitech City, Opposite Cyber Towers Hyderabad - 500081.

¶9

Permanent Address: - Mr. Avinash C, S/o. Mr. Srinivasulu Reddy Chillakuru, 6-3-609/ 40, Anand Nagar Hyderabad - 500004.

¶10

...... Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. N. B. Sudarshan Defendants : Ex-parteEx-parte

¶12

: Ex-parteEx-parte

¶13

r. The Appricant eank nte; ,nT*" r"^{o^ ,"r the recovery of a sum of} Rs.23.40,960.91ps from the defendant with future interest @18o/o p.a. compounded monthly rests from-the date of application till the date of reatisation atong with costs.fr$.$*

¶14

OA.No.815/2025

¶15

¶16

Summon served on sole defendant through^{paper publication and} was set ex-parte on 10.06.2026 as called absent and^no representation.

¶17

The Applicant Bank examined Shyam Kumar^{Reddy, Legal lYanager} as AW-1 and marked 04 documents through him^{as Ex. A.1 to Ex.} A.04.

¶18

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

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶20

whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶21

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The^Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.04 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.815/2025 is allowed as under:^-

¶23

i) The Defendant is liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.23,40,960.91ps with future interest @14.50o/o^{p.a. simple,} from.the date of^{application till} the date of reatization; ,Ayu*'t (-/

¶24

¶25

OA.No.815/2025

¶26

ii) the applicant bank is also entifled to Proceed^against

¶27

the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶28

iii) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶29

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. (0ictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25rh day ofAugust,2O26).

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Avinash C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mr. Avinash C

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Umiya Timber Trading.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Haneesh Babu Vuyyuru

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sree Venkateswara Beauty Services.

Mohammed Faheemuddin versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Ramulu

Indusind Bank versus Sunand