Dismissed

Vunnam Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Nov 2021WP/12838/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging harassment and use of muscle power by bank recovery agents. The Court directed respondent banks to adhere to RBI guidelines and Supreme Court judgments on recovery practices, threatening appropriate action for violations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to follow RBI guidelines and Supreme Court judgment on recovery; appropriate action threatened for violation.

Vunnam Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD {Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B,VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETI TION NO :1283I OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vunnam V_enkatesh,^ S/o.. V. _Ve_nkat Reddy, Aged. 41 years, Occ. Travel Business, F/o. 8-3-231 /A I 41 _42. Sri KrishnJ'Nagir,^-Vousrffi I, n-y"#ralaO - 500 045.

¶8

...PETtTtONER(S)

¶9

AND

¶10

The state of reranoana. Rep., by its principar secretary for Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderaiad.

¶11

The Branch Manaoer. citibank, p.o. Box No. 4830, Anna Sarai post office, Chennai - 600 OO2

¶12

The Branch Manaoer. rcrcr Bank, rcrcr Bank rower, Bandra-Kurra comprex, Mumbai - 400 051:

¶13

4 The Branch Manager, rndusrnd Bank, Regd. office at po Box No. 9421, chakala MIDC, Andheri Ea!t, ivlumbai - 400 0b3

¶14

The.Branch Manager, Axis Bank, c-2, wadia rnternationar center, pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra - 400 025

¶15

The Branch Manager, sBr cards and payment services Ltd.. DLF rnfinitv .l^{gyq1s, Tower C, 'l2thFloor, Btock 2, Building} 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgdon - 122 002, Haryana.

¶16

.,,RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents no.2 to 5 in harassing, humiliating, and using of muscle power against the petitioner for repayment of creditcard loan amount due, through their recovery agents as illegal, arbitrary, and against the RBI Guidelines on Fair Practices code for Lenders, Dated 05/05/2003, and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents no.2 to s not to harass, humiliate and use muscle power against the petitioner for repayment of credilcard loan amount due, their recovery agents and to pass

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under section^'1 51 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DlREcr the respondents no.2 to 5 not to use muscle power against the petitioner

¶20

for repayment of credit-card loan amount due; through their recovery agents, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. JAKKAMSETTI RAVINDRA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No 1: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No 6: SRI N.HARINATH

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No 2 to 5: -

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

The Hon'ble Sri lustice B. Viiavsen Reddv

¶27

W.P. No. 12838 of 2021

¶28

Order:

¶29

I Ieard learned coullscl for the pctitioner aud lcarned counsel for rcspondcot No.(r.^'l'l-rcrc ts no^{re pt'scntltior-i lrrr rcspolldcllts No.l} to 5.

¶30

'l'hc iimitcd gric-ancc of rhc pcdri<ir:cr is tlrat rcspottc'lcrlls Nr;.2 to^(r/Banks are harassillg, humiliatin.q and using^{muscle porveragaitrsi} ther pctrtioner lor reoa,mcnt t.rf creclit card^{loan throughrcco-efl'} agents and the action of the respondents No.2 to^{(r/Banks is arbitran'} ar.rd aga:nst thc 1{ll i^(luidclines on.Farr I)ractices^{(lodc lor Lcnders,} dateci 05.05.20{13, and thr-rs, riolatir,c of^{,\rticles14urncJ21 tif Irrdran} (lor-rstitu tion.

¶31

l,carnc:d counscl frrr thc potitionc:r strbmrts that^rn ICICI^Bank vs Shanti Devi Sharma and othersl,^{Ilorr'blc Sup;:cmc{.ourtoF} Ir-rdia has talicn irrto cottsidclatl,tn thc cuidclircs^{rssucd i:1'} tlt'^Iilll rvith ri:gard to mctirods trt bc rcsorted lo bv^{rcc()'cfl'tgc1lts.}

¶32

l,can'rcd counscl tirr thc petitioncr^rclers to^{l)ara 12 of thc sa.icl} jucign-rr:nt t.irercitr rl-re [ [or-r'ble Suprenre⁽ ]otrr:t has re ferrecl to thc guidelincs in Parur^(r of thc Code of llnnk's^{(lon-rmitmcntto (llrstomcr:l} (fi>r short 'the^(iodc'), fot coLlcctton of dues.

¶33

Respondcr-rt Nr:.6, in its courter, submitted^{that tl-retc \ra s no} threat br, 4.1)y r('co\reri tcam^{on behalfof rcspondent lrlo.6/llank;baid}

¶34

'^{2oo8(7)scc 532}

¶35

allcgauons^{..rre mti-lr bv thc peutroncr; thcre is atl t-rt-ttst:rtldirlrl znrout]t} oF I{s.,1,1 1,691.|i1^{ps.. parablc bv the pctitir>ncri thc lirst iulount pn'itl} br. thc pctitirr|(.r^{,\ rrs ut16.()2.2021.21nd the bai:itrcc efi()tl11tllas to be} paid irl thc^{p etiiir -'rlt,r.}

¶36

6- lrr thc altr','' c^{iircts and circumstanccs,thi-s \'rit1)euuonis} disposed of^{rvitl. a dircctionto respondelltsNo.2 to (r/llankstrr} ft;llorv the guiclciir.res^{issued b,v the RRi unde r thc ( -ode and the} juclgment of the Sr:preme Court^{in ICICI Bank (t sr'rpra), if thev} inLcnd to rcc().c].^{loans tr-onl tlie pctrtitlr-rcr.I Io*cr.r-'r. ii rhe rrboi'l} qr,riclelitre s lre Iroleted, appropriate^{actior-rs,ould bc tel,r rr auaitrst} rcspoudents No..1 to^6/ilarrks.

¶37

,. Sultitct lo lir,-' ltbor e^{clirccuon :urd obse r'''.rttr''rl. \'rit 1)ctitioflrs} dispr>scd ol.

¶38

\s lr sr'.i1.-'i. <sup>[ j-.ce ]ltncr-, trs^{i)ctitiotrs.ptrlrlirr{ iili;-,',..stltrl'-1}

¶39

clisrrisscd.

¶40

SDIV.SUDHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary for Finance Department' Secretariat' State of Telangana'} Hyderabad.

¶45

The Branch^{Manager, Citibank'P O' Box No' 4830' Anna Salai Post Office'} Chennai^- 600⁰⁰²

¶46

n The Branch^{Manager,lClCl Bank' ICICI BankTower' Bandra-Kurla Complex'} Ivlumbai^- 400^051.

¶47

The Branch^{Manager, lnduslndBank' Regd' Office at POBox No' 9421' Chakala}

¶48

rvii6c, Anoneiira".t, Mumbai - 400 093

¶49

The Branch^{Manager, Axis Bank' C-2' Wadia.lnte.rnational Center' Pandurang}

¶50

" e'tiir,"kii Miis. wo"tri, IV'moai, Iviaharastra^{- 400025}

¶51

The Branch^{Manager, SBI Cards and P-ayment ServicesLtd" DLF lnfinity} Towers,^{Tower c, 1 ztlFl;; d6;k'z"e'jiid's i' olr cvoei citv' Gursaon- 122} 002, Haryana.

¶52

One CC to^{STi JAKKAMSETTI RAVINDRA Advocate[OPUC]}

¶53

S.TwoCCstoGPfoTFINANCEPLANNING'HighCourtfortheStateof - iJtin-gana at HYderabad [OUT]

¶54

Two CD^Copies

10.One SPare^CoPY.

rsi a,,{

HIGH^COURT

DAIEDl.2311112021

ORDER

WP.No.12838 of 2021

1 BE S7r. 16
o a
q
(B a. o 1 DEC2tlPr
J-,,
.<br>u(

¶62

DISPOSING OF THI' WRIT PETITION

¶63

WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

/-)-
6

¶65

fsn er./

Vunnam Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vunnam Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irfan Khan Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

C. Keerthana Vs The State of Telangana

Veeramalla Narsimha Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Vippala Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Durgam Laxman Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

K.Veereshwar Vs The State of Telangana