Allowed

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud

DRT25 Mar 2026OA/907/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal application, the bank sought recovery of Rs. 37 lakhs plus interest from defendants who defaulted on a loan. The defendants appeared ex-parte. The tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence, established joint and several liability, and allowed the recovery claim, including recourse against the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 37,31,141.62 with future interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties for realization of dues; Recovery certificate issued.

Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB.^{(HONS.), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPL]CATION NO: 907 OF 2025

¶5

YES Bank Limited.,

¶6

Office at 1-8-387, 2nd Floor, Agravanshi Plaza, HUDA Lane, SP Road, Secunderabad-500003. Rep. by its Authorized Slgnatory.

¶7

.... .Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud

¶10

Wo.^{Praveen Kumar Goud, Aged about} 44 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.16-1-21 Railway Gate, Karimabad,^{Warangal-506002.}

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud C/o. ITS U Fashions, 8-3-90,^StationRoad Near SBI Bank, Warangal Town And District - 506002.

¶13

lYr. Allibada Praveen^Kumar S/o. Satyanarayana,^{Aged about51 Years}

¶14

Occ: Business,^{R/o. H. No.16- 1-21}

¶15

Railway Gate, Karimabad,^{Warangal-506002'}

¶16

... Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. lv'|. Srinivas Reddy

¶18

Defendants

¶19

:Ex-parte

¶20

:: g_LLE& ::

¶21

total

¶22

1. The Applicant Bank^{filed the present OA} for the recovery a sum of Rs.37,31,147.62Ps^{from the} defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @ry% p.a. com pou nded with b6$

¶23

oA.NO.907/202s

¶24

monthly rests from 23.07.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶25

2, Summons served on D1 and 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 24.03.2026 as called absent and no representation.

¶26

The Applicant Bank examined Sai pavan Gudivada, Legal Manager, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.07.

¶27

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

¶28

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶29

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

¶30

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 joinUy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, the present Original Application No.90712025 is allowed as under: - Ow'+u

¶32

oA.NO.9O7l2O25

¶33

¶34

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.37,31,141.62ps with future interest @16.1olo^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

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 25th Day of^{March, 2026).}

¶41

frw*-*" lnliffesHwaR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited. v. Mrs. Allibada Anitha Goud

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

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited

Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Shailesh Kumar Gujjar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Capital Protection Private Limited.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Bagat Shopping Mall.

Allam Ragunath and a Shailaja versus Bank of India

Mrs K Vinodini versus Indian Bank