The court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents to ensure their recovery agents strictly follow RBI guidelines and Supreme Court judgments, following a previous order in a similar matter.
Direction issued to respondents and agents to follow RBI circulars and Supreme Court judgments during loan recovery.
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.
[3300 ]
;
\
IN THE HIGHCOURTFORTHE STATEOF TI=LANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY. THE EIGHTEENTHDAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FI/E
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICE NAGESH Bi{EEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITIO NNO:30777 OF202.5
Between:
Korudi SreenivasaRa o, S/o K PranaesaRao Aged about ,S!^yeart: ,Otg Private Employee,H.N o S-tSZ, 2ndRoad.New town,NearSPSIT4HSchool' desh 515004 Anantapur, AndhraPra -..PETtrtoNER
-..PETtrtoNER
AND
s r.rrri ii"t"iv [rmitednep-nv ii Chi.f Man'ge' 2ndFloor'VaishnavrTech " sqrui.. rorlrriViirrg" e'egui Houti, Bengaluiu, 560102
...RESpoNDENTS
Petition underArtrcle 226 ol lhe Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court may be pleased to rssue an appropriatewrit. order or direction more-particularty o1e,il lne nature of wRlT oFIvlANDAtVlusdeclaringthe action ol the respondentsin not controlling theagents who harassing t[e petitioner 'rnd his family by the ,esponde"nts t,lo i to5 lbankauthoiitiesand^ financrarlinstitutions)is illegal' arbrtrary, vrolationot tne principles of naturaliuOiceand blatant violationand as well as Rules framedunder /ieserveBank oi lndia ancl the fundamentalrights graranteeO under theConstitutionof lndia consequentlydirect the respondents not to harass thepetitioner and his family members on the groundof collectingthe monthly installmentaues and directresiondent no.3 to 5, to follow circulardated 1 2.OA.IO2Z videRBt t 2o22i.2, t oA, DOi.O RG REC.65/21. 04. 1 58 t2o22-23 issued by respondentno.2.
Counsel for thePetitioner:SRI M.KESHAVYADAV
Corn""f for theRespondent No.1: SMT' B'KAVITHAYADAV' SC FOR
CENTRAL GOVTCOUNSEL
Counsel for theRespondent No.3:SRISUDHARSHAN NARAHARI Counsel for theRespondent Nos.2,4& 5: - The Court madethe following:ORDER
-G3<
I
,! J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH Bf]])EMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.3O777 ol 2025
ORDER:
Hcard Sri M.Keshav Yadav, Iearned counsel lcr thepetitloner,Sm[ B.Kavita Yadar., lcarncd St:rncling Counscl lor( entral Govcrnment appearing for respondent No.L, and Sri Sudharsl'r r rNarahari,learned counsel for responclen t No.3.
"8. For the aforesaid reasons ald as :re procedure adoptcd bv lhc respondent Nos.4 to 7 lor r: rovery of loan amount lrom the pctiLioner, ilmounts to violal( r of the rights gualanteed under Articles t.l and 21 o[ thc( onslitution of lndia. lhis Cuurt cleems ir appropriatc l direct the respondents. to ensure thaL the agents engal[!( 1 b1- them for recovery of the loan amounts, shzrIl stri,: lv follow the guidelincs and instructions issued by the Re ;en e Bank of lndia ald also thc Judgments of the Hor.r'blc S rpreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur's casc l1 supra) zrnd ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (lt ;upra). 9. With the above said direction. the .,, rt petition is disposed of.'
2
Pcncling miscellaneous applicatrons, if any, shall pt&d closed
(2OO7l 2 SCC 7fl
2 (2008) 7 SCC 532
SD/.A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTR
//TRUE COPY//
CTION OFFICER
To
1 [2007] 2 SCC 71 1
, [2008] 7 SCC s32
HIGH COURT
DATED:1811112025
ORDER
WP.No.30777 of 2025
t ( ) tTHEg
()
o r 6 f'iln 2026 z
rtrA
DISPOSING OFTHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
tuu'
't--f >1>+
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the recovery agents' actions amount to harassment and violation of natural justice and fundamental rights?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash KaurReferred¶31
ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur's case (2007) 2 SCC 711 · Who else cites this
ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi SharmaReferred¶31
ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (2008) 7 SCC 532 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Korudi Sreenivasa Rao
Union of India
Reserve Bank of India
HDFC Bank Ltd.
ICICI Bank
Navi Finserv Limited
Nagesh Beemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
