Writ petition alleging harassment by bank recovery agents contrary to the RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022. Following the court's earlier order in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, the petition was disposed of directing respondents to follow RBI guidelines and Supreme Court precedents in recovering loan amounts.
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 I
\
IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER NA/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33357 OF 2o2s
Korukonda Venkata Sgry Rajeev Mohan, S/o Srinivasarao, Age. 33 years, Occ. Job Searching R/o D.No. 0-2-161, Poduru, West Godavari, Ahdhra : Pr:adesh -534327.'
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 06 in attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner in an arbitrary, illegal, and highhanded manner without following the due process of law and in blatant violation of the Reserve Bank of lndia Circular dated 12.08.2022 bearing No. RBll2O2223t1O8, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21.O4.158t2O22-23, and further declaring the inaction of respondent No. 2 in enforcing the said Circular as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any coercive or unlawful
I I I ! i I I I I I i i
recovery mrlasures against thepetitioner and to strictlycornplywith the due process of law and the aforesaid Circular in alt recoveryproceedings, andfurther restrain respondent Nos. 3 to 06, theil age-nJs, recoveryagents,executives, managers, or anyperson acting on theii:befratf'from enga$ingin any acts of ,,,,,.,, intimidation, harassment, humiliation, or intrusion,into theprivacy of the petitioner or his famill, members, referees or friends;, includingpersistentor anonymous calls, threattrning messages, orphysical v]9its to,thepetitioner's premises,and 1 .t": .' further direct respondent No. 2rto enforce the said RB! Circular inletterand spirit and to initiate appropriate ancl stringent action'against the errantofficials of respondent Nlos. 3 to 06 for violating legal'norms, andpending disposal of the writ petition, direr:t the respondent Nos. 3 to OO not.to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in.strictadherenceto the Circulardaterl 12lOBt2O22. ''. .'',
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONTHU LOKESFI PHANINDRAREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAO, Deputy Solicitor of lndia
Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SMT. Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI B.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4:..
The Court made the following: ORDER
(-, r-)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAT{GANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEIMAPAI{A
WRIT PETITION No.33357 of 2o25
02.12.20.25
Between:
Komkonda Venkata Surya R4ieev Mohan
...Petitioner
AND
Union of India & five others
Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri B. Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.l,,Smt K.Ramya, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri B.Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the record.
\ .t
\
'(8. por ttre I afot""*U reasons and as the procedure adopted by ttre respondent Nos.4 to 7 for recoveryof loan amount from the petitioner, amounts to violationof the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India, this Court deems it appropriate to directthe
2
respondents, to ensure that the agents engaged by themfor recorrery of the loan ambunts, shall strictly-' follow the guidelines and instnrctions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also thejudgments of the Honble Supreme Corirt in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur's case (1 supra) and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devt Sharma's cas€ (2 supra)., 9. With the above said direction, the lrypil petition is disposed of."
Pr:nding miscellaneous applications, if any, shall closed
Ieooz)2 s'cc 711 z (2008) 7 SCC s32
,/TRUE COPY'/
To 1 The [iecretary, Unionof lndia, Ministry of 2 Tte Chief General Manager,Reserve Bank of
,"i'sEcfloN oFFtcER
Delhi (RBl),6, Sansad Marg,
11.Two CD Copies
/
PSK. +tr
t
a
HIGH COURT
<br>
tr
WP.No.33357 of 2O25
:] ::
.:.. ,.i ;.
t
1 ,6 t{lR, 20m
*
t
DISPO$ING OF THE WRIT PETITION W]THOUT C 3 STS
1"
1 issue framed by the court
Whether recovery agents of respondent banks/finance companies were harassing the petitioner in violation of the RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash KaurApplied¶5
(1) SCC 711
ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi SharmaApplied¶5
(2008) 7 SCC 532 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Korukonda Venkata Surya Rajeev Mohan
Union of India
Reserve Bank of India
RBL Bank
Kotak Mahindra Bank
Kisetsu Saison Finance Private Ltd
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
