Disposed

Chaganaboina Sree Devi v. The Union of India

Telangana HC8 Oct 2025WP/28101/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition alleging harassment by bank recovery agents in loan recovery was disposed on the lines of an earlier order of the same Court, directing respondents to follow RBI guidelines and Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Respondents and their agents directed to follow RBI circular dated 12.08.2022 and Supreme Court judgments while recovering loan amounts from the petitioner; no costs.

Chaganaboina Sree Devi Vs The Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HfGTI COt'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD {Speciat^Orighal Jurisdlction) \

¶3

[33(}0l

¶4

I/VEDf{ESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OFOCTOtsER TWO THOUSAND ANID TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NA@SH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

Between:

¶8

I Chaganaboina Sree Devi, C/o Murli Krishna about Occ. Private Employee, 22-1 12i1 Flat No-4O2 Sai Tulasi ya.nam Navodaya Colony Jaya Nagar, Telangana-SWO72 ...PETlTlOtlER

¶9

AND

¶10

liFh-tiJ,"9ry.tfi"r&gYil:ffi :lsBi,1[irilH.flli,ffiffi ;lty#!1. Marg, New Delhi -110001

¶11

1. IES BANK RE..pV -3 ilg Cfrlef Manag_e.r, Ground Ftoor, Mayar* Towers, 9rIy"J^{*. 3 1 (0 id ),} 1 /2 ( New), naiHnb vi; c;"d,'$rilig ila'a, nvo'6i.oro500082

¶12

tDFc FTRST B{y, B.p. by its chief Manager, lDFc F|RST Bank Ltd, The Qquury,^{c:-61, G Block,'Baddra_xurta} Co*piJx'dorl e e{o;k, EdrrOE:ftma Cornplex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - +OOOS1

¶13

...RESPONT}ENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circrtrnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, dhe High'c&r;';;y'b" pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction tnore paiicularly one in ttre ' nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the r"rpon.Lnb i" ;;j controlling the agents who harassing tne petitioner and his'fanril/ Ol, tne respordents.l$os. 3 to 4 (bank autholities and financi,al institutions)'is ilbg;i arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice and blatant.viotation and as well as Rules frarned under Reserve Bank or lndia and the f"njant ni;l ,[ffi; guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia consequently direct ttre respondents r: not to harass the petitioner and his family members on the"ground of colecting the 12A8.2022 vide RBtt2022-23t 108, DoR. oRG. Rrc65/21 .O4.1*tffJ22-23 issued by respondent no.2

¶15

Counsel forthe^petitioner: SRI M.KESHAV YADAV

¶16

Gounsel forthe Respondent No.1: DEPUTY soltctToR GENERAL OF llfr)lA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: -

¶17

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶18

i I I i I I II I !

¶19

\ \

¶20

THT IION'BLE SRI JT'STICE NAGESH BHTEMAPAKA

¶21

¶22

ORDIR:

¶23

Hearc sri M' Keshav Yadav, lbarned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for central Government, for respondent No.1.

¶24

\ \

¶25

2' whe. the matter is taken up for hearing, rearned counsel for petitioner .'.. submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.s2oo of 2o24,dated 25'04.2024 and therefore, the same order may be passed in this writ petition as rvell. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

¶26

"s' For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure adopted !v tt: respondent Nos.4 to-iro, recovery of loan amor,rnt frgrn the petitioner, arnounts to violation .i it. ight" guaranteed rander Articres 14 and 2r of the constitrtioi-or ' [ndia, this court deems it "pprop.i",e to direct the respondents, to ensure that the "g.rrt" .rrg.g.a by them for :recovery of the loan arnounts, shall "t i"uv iouo--tt" guidelines a'd instructirons issued uv tnl Reserve Bank of l.ndia 3td"g ge j.rd*rnents of the Honble Supreme Court in rcrcr Baak Lt(vs. prakash *"ori" """e (r supra) and. ICICI !)- Baok Vs. Shantt Devi Sharmab with the above said direction,-ihe ;; (2 supra).writ petition is clisposed of."

¶27

3' Learned standing counsel for central Government has no objection.

¶28

4' Accorclingry, in terms of the order passed by this court in w.P-No.S2oo of 202;4, dated 2s.o4.2o24, and for the reasons arike, this writ petition is dis;posed of directing the respondent authorities and their agents to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions issued by the Reserve

¶29

¶30

I I I i I I I I i I I I I I ! I i

¶31

Bank of India in its Circular dated 12.08.2022 and also the judgments of Honbb Suprerne Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur'ls case and

¶32

ICICI Bant v.,Shanti Devi Sharma'2s case, while recovering. the loan ' .:.:,

¶33

arnounts from t}te petitioner. No costs.

¶34

_ Ig{tng_qli_gsaleleous^{applications,if any, shall standctrosed.}

¶35

/TRUE COPY/

¶36

SD'- M. JAT'VAHAR^REDDY ASSISTANT REGITiTRAR 6.

¶37

SECTON OFFICER

¶38

¶39

The secretary,^{Union of lndia, Ministry_ofFinance, New Delhi} i: iE Chief Gerierat.Man*er,^{Reserve Bank of lndia, 6, Sansad Marg, lrlew} Delhi-110001 3. cili;i Mir,ag6r, YesBank, -nri B ha va n Ro-a!,-Qolnaj^{Groqnd Ftoor, us uqa} YrY?nf I Lg^{g royrgp-,-S^t1ry9y q!4 -500082rrc'31{0!d)'} 4. ihe 3 i iZ itibf i N "*i^{'f,raniger,iOrC FIRbT BAN( IDFC^ F_6S.r Pank Ltqr Theiiqus!'e,:} C-O 1;iidfiicX,^{tsanbii-Xurta Complex i-6 1, G B bck, Bandra-Kurla Complex,} Band'ra^(East), Mumbai-⁴⁰⁰⁰⁵¹ 5. one-Cdro sr{ u.xesHAV^{YADAV,Advocate- t-oep-QJ} 6. d; cc iii oepUrv^{sollclroR GENERALoF INDIA[oPUc]} 7. Two CD Copies

¶40

PSK. BSR. trJ

¶41

t(2oo7)2*c7LL

¶42

z 120O8) 7 SCf, 532

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811012025

ORDER

WP.No.28101 o12025

I
STAII
1 0 ftB 2026 G,
a-)

av."'

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

e,
corP
4t,
ab. 3 l"W

Chaganaboina Sree Devi v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaganaboina Sree Devi v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Purelli Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Limited Vs State of Telangana

Venkumahanthi Naresh Kumar Vs Union of India

Bandari Janardhan Vs The State of Telangana

Transport Corporation of India, Sec.Bad Vs the New India Co. Ltd, and Anr.