Two writ appeals filed by UCO Bank challenging an order that suspended Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against two senior citizen borrowers were dismissed. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, deprecating the bank's selective approach.
Appeals dismissed. Costs of Rs.50,000 imposed on the Regional Manager.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s5 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEI/BER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.768 &770 of 2022
WRIT APPEAL NO: 768 OF 2022
Writ Appeal under Clause'15 of the Letterspatent preferred against the order daled 1211012022 in W.P.No.17271 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
AND
...RespondenUPetitioner
...RespondenURespondent No.4
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order daled 1211012O22 passed in W.P.No. 17271 of 2022pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants: SMT. Ms. SHALINI
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI VIKRAM POOSERLA
Counsel forthe Respondent No.2; SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
il2il
WRIT APPEAI- NO: 770 OF 2022
| WritAppealunderClause15ofthe Letters PatentPreferred againsttheorder | |
|---|---|
| dated | 12l1Ol2o22inW.P.No.369O1of2022 onthefileof theHiqh Court. |
| Betw |
een: |
| 1. 2. |
UCOBank,AssetlvlanagementBranch,6-3-1108,GroundFloor, Navabharath Chambers,Raj Bhavan Road,Somajiguda,Hyderabad -500082. UCO Bank,ZonalOtfice, 8-2-624, Ground Floor, RoadNo.10, BanjaraHills, Hyderabad-500034 |
| 3. AND |
UCO Bank, Corporate Head Office, 10,BT M Sarani, Kolkata -70000, West Bengal. ...Appellants RespondentsNo.1to3 |
| 1. | h/s.UshaRani Maganti,W/o Dr.Venkata RamanaRao Maganti Agedabout59 years, OccHousewifeR/o Flat No.302, Jyothi Nest,Road No.2 BanjaraHills, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUPetitioner |
| 2. |
Bureauoflnrnrigration,East Block-VlllLevel-V,Sector-1,R.K.Puram New Delhi-110066 rep by its Commissioner. |
| 3. |
Foreigners Regional Registration OfficerBureauoflmmigration (MHA), SardarVallabhai PatelBOI OCR ComplexShamshabad-Pahadishareef Road NearGlr/R Township (CISF Residential quarters)Ivlamidipally, Shamshabad, Telangana. |
| 4. | UnionoflndaMinistryofHomeAffairsNorthBlock,NewDelhi-11001 Representedby Secretary. ...Respondents/RespondentNos.4to6 |
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the order daled 12-10-2022 passed in W.P.No.36901 ol 2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 F 022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 1211A12022 passed in W.P.No.3690'l of 2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants: SMT. M. SHALINI
Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: M/S. SHREYA DEVAKI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.B}IASKAR REDDY
Writ Appeal Nos.768 & 770 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice UlaI Bhuuan)
Heard Ms. N.Shalini, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel lor respondent No.1/writ petitioners; and Mr.G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.2.
l
W.P.No.3690l of 2022, his wife - Mrs.Usha Rani Maganti, is the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.
AS CO5. Respondents No.l / r.r,rit petitioners applicant along with three other individuals, had availed loans from the appellants to the tune of Rs.75,OO,00O/-, eaclr by offr:ring property admeasuring l.B7 1 12 cents at Nidamanuru Village, Delhi Public School, Vijayawada.
paid by them. However, according to the appellants, writ petitioners are required to pay Rs.6,36,32,384.21.
B. Contending the same to be in violation of their fundamental rights, more particularly, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitions came to be filed.
8.1. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that there are no criminal proceedings either instituted or pending against the writ petitioners. Therefore, issuance of LOC is wholly unjustified.
1
issued LOCs only on the ground that r,r,rit petitioners are defaulters ol' loan. Writ petitioners are intending to travel abroad to ser: their grand children, aged about 2 years and 6 ),ears respectively. Learned Single Judge further noted thzrt appellants were not in a position to explain as to why the physical llresence of the writ petitioners was necessary for continuation of recovery proceedings and to recover the amount claimed by appellants. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge issued the following directions:
"i) Both the uit petitions are disposed of utith the follou.ting directions:
a) Look out Circulars (LOCs) both dated 07.11.2020 issued against tle petitioners in both the writ petitions bg lst respondent - Bank are suspended for a period from 13.1O.2022 to 30.1 1.2022.
shall b) Respondent bank infonn/ communicate this order to the 4th respondent - Immigration Bureau in term,s of Office Memorandum dated 22. 02. 202 1.
c) Petitioners shall inform their arrtual/ departure to the respondent - Bank in terms of the aforesaid Offtce Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Petitioners shall cooperate with the
)
I
\
respondent - Bank by furnishing the infortnation/ documents if any as and uhen required.
d) Respondent - Bank/Oiginating Agencg shall reuieu.t both the Lookout Circulars (LOCs) dated 07.11.2O2O issued against both tlrc petitioners on quarterly and annual basis, submit proposals if aruy immediatelg after such reuietu in terms of the said Office Memorandum dated 22.O2.2O21. Both respondents shall comply tuith the guidelines issued by the Union of India uide Office Memorandum dated 2 2. 02.2 02 1.
e) Liberty is granted to respondents to take action against the petttioner in the euent of uiolation of any ofthe aforesaid conditions.
ii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cosfs. "
6
--.r
be changed by the appellants, more particula-rly, since they are public sector undertakings. That apart, LOCs were suspended lor a period from 13.10.2022 to 30.11,.2022, r,,,hich period had already expired.
l
Ioan amount but are also contesting the SARFAESI
proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs
MEMORANDUMOF COSTS
\
WRITAPPEALNos'768 & 770of 2022
Rs.Ps.
n$fl#e-jfr{tr3triffi days.
50,000- 00 50,000-00
TOTAL
SD/-T.SRINIVAS DEPLITYREGISTRAR
//TRUECOPY//
SECTI.ONOFFICER
To,
1 2 $k{sn:ffi:ifdl'#{"4'rf#*l'::rersTi'*f;1K?q{"s:r':,'
I
.././
CHR t-/.y
HIGH COURT
DATED:0911212022
COMMON JUDGMENT
-:-.\ <br>an' SlAtE
t
2 [ sEt ?tl
'/
.<br>
W.A.Nos.768 &770 of 2022
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITH COSTS
"u,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Look Out Circulars issued against loan defaulters were justified given the absence of criminal proceedings and substantial compliance with the loan amount.
Whether the Single Judge erred in suspending the Look Out Circulars pending the appeal.
UCO Bank
Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti
Usha Rani Maganti
Bureau of Immigration
Union of India
Ujjal Bhuyan
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
