Smt Suram Visalakshmi, Vs Idbi Bank

¶1

[3300 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 25697 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Suram Visalakshmi, W/o. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Aged aboul 77 years, Occ. Housewife, D. No. 15-'17-'19, Venkatadri Colony, New Mirzalguda, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500047.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 lDBl Bank, Regional Office, at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, fvlumbai, rep by its Regional Manager.

¶12

2 IDBI Bank, Hubsiguda Branch, D. No. 4-7-149, Nagender Nagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, Rep by its Branch Head and DGM.

¶13

3 The Superintendent of Police, CBUACB Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar [Vlandal, Rangareddy Dist.

¶15

..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents No.¹ and 2 in not releasing the original documents mortgaged with Respondent No.2 Bank towards the security for the loan account of the Petitioner viz., A,/c No. 0446655100001007, and in not removing the mortgage before the 4th Respondent, even after clearance of the entire dues/loan amounts and issuance of the No Dues Certificate by Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 26.11.2020, as well as after removal of the attachment order on the subject^property by the Hon'ble DRT-Il, Hyderabad, on the^ground of the criminal case vide FIR No. RC 06N2018lCBllHYD dated 22.O3.2018 or any other investigation not known to the Petitioner and not notified by the Respondents till date, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust'

¶17

u nconstitution al, in violation of the principles of natural ju stice, and contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently^jirect Respondents No 1 and 2 to forthwith release the original documents mortgzi€ ed as security for the subject loan account of the Petitioner.

¶18

lA NO:'f OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the (:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Corrrt may be pleased to direct the Respondent No's 1 and 2 to release the origina rlocuments which are mortgaged with the 2nd Respondent bank towards the r;ecurity against loan account of the petitioner viz., Alc. No. 046655100001007, even after clearance if entire dues/loan amounts and No Dues Certificate was granted by the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 26.11.2O2O, on the Eround of pendency of investigation in C'iminal Case vide FIR No. RC 06(A)/2 )18-CBI/HYD dated. 22.O3.2018, immediately disposal of the present Writ Pet trtn on the fiie of the Hon'ble High Court

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SATHAKARNI.K

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI T.SRUJAN KUMAR FIEDDY, SPL. PP FOR CBI

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

n

¶25

I I

¶26

THE HOil'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.25697 OF 2o25

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Writ Petition is liled challenging the action of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in refusing to relcase the original documents mortgaged rvith Respondent No.2 Bank for the Petitioner's loan ( lc No.0446655100001007), despite full rcpayment, issuance ol a No Dues Certificate dated 26.11.2020, and removal ol the attachment ordcr by the Honble DRT-II Hyderabad. Pctitioner further se:ks a c,irection to the Respondcnts to immediately release the original documents

¶30

Heard Sri I{. Sathakarni, learned counsel fcr petitioner, Sri T.Srujan Kurnar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, for respondent No.3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.4. Perused the record

¶31

When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue rarsed in this Writ Petition is squarely covered b), the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23651 of 2020, and therefcre, the same order

¶32

2

¶33

NBI. 1 \'1, No 256()7 2015

¶34

may be passed ir, tl-ris Wrrt petition as rvc1l. !.he Operative

¶35

portion of the said order reads as follows

¶36

"ln tlrc lqlLt of tlrc oboue facts and. circumslonces rr cl o,so taktng ito corr-sidcralio,l Lhe crucial fctct that thc cl,lt(, laatl amottnt i: cLeured ctrtcj u No lhte Certificate uas olrec,rlr, rsstted bg resporc)ett 1y'o.2, as earlg as on 25.j1.2020, ,1)(1 the srtbnrissiorrs ntade by learned Senior Counsel thc.t the 1tt:t111611", wottld submil all t|rc docu tenls, as and when re 1Lt;.e,d itg responderl ,Vo 3, this Cotut of the constdered uieu Ulttt ,i1ere is no controt)erstJ that ts req::ired to be resolued in lrtrj l,l./ril Petition.^y' ccordingllj, this Wrtt Petition is disposed oJ' .lr?cttnq lhe respottdent Nos-l and 2 to take a steps to retunt dll tlte origital docurnents docunents that u,ere depositert I t1 tt.te petittoner o1 connecliotl tuith the toan transoction-s in r.r strcct ojf loqtt Ac(01! t Nos.44 6655l0OOOOO37, 446655 1OO')( DAq5. 44665510AA00O55,.1466551 00000064 and 44665510() )()OA73, tuitlrirt a 1.enod ctf stx (06) weeks from the date of ret,t!,t oJ a coplJ of thts order. lufther, tlle petitioner is directecl t< )1le otL ctffi.dauit ttr tlris Wit Petitiort wtderlaktng to pro I , : tL,.e documen(s tllel Luould be returned bg respondent No.2 l)u) suc.nl to tlte dirttcttott of this Coui beJore respondenf No..l r; nrrri uhert required, ruithirt a per.ld of two (02) weeks fron 11.,,, .lat(: of receipt of cL copy of this order.

¶37

4 . Learncd ooultscl lor the petitioner filed an ir.'fr da\ it stating that, while disposing of the said Writ Petition with .r direction to release of al1 original documents by the respondclrt Bank, this Court had speoifically directed the petitioner the c in to filc an aflidavit underl-al<ing that, as and when requiro(l by t.he CBl, the petitionerd'ould produce the original do<:lr rnents. It is further submitted that, during the hearing of argrunents on an earlier occasion, this Court directed the petitioner to file a similar affidavit in the present matter. In vie',t, of this direction,

¶38

w

¶39

NDK J Wl' No 25697 2025

¶40

I I i

¶41

r.) the petitioner hereby undertakes to produce arld submit the original documents and as and when required by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

¶42

I

¶43

Learned Special public prosecutor lor CBI, for respondent No.3 vehemently opposed for the same stating that the Charge_ sheets in respect of A-3 & A_6 to A_24 groups and co_ co'spirators including the petitioner, have also been filed and CC Numbers are awaited. In fact the trial is already commenced in CC.No.lO of 2O2l and 12 of 2O2t on the file of the I Additional Speciai Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

¶44

Recording the above said undertaking of the petitioner and in terms of the order passed by this jourt in W.p.No. 23651 of 2O20, dated 13.07.2023, this Writ petirion is disposed ol directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take all steps to return ail the origina,l documents that were deposited by the petitioner in connection with the loan transactions in respect of loan Account No.O44665SlOOO010O7 within a. period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

I

¶46

NLll'^l \P^{! li69-' lnli}

¶47

J

¶48

I I I t I I I

¶49

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pend.ing i1this Writ}

¶50

Petition,^{shali stand.closed'}