The High Court · 2025

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 4 in not releasing the original documents, which were mortgaged with the 2nd respondent bank towards the security against loan account of the petitioner i.e A/c.No.0446655100001 120, even after clearance of entire dues/loan amounts and No Dues Certificate was granted by the 2nd respondent vide letter Ref No- lDBI/SUGAM/0021PSN2025-26, dated-01.07.2025, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 4 to release the original documents, which were mortgaged as security for subject loan accounts of the petitioner, immediately. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents 1 and 4 to release the original documents, which were mortgaged with the 2nd respondent bank towards the security against loan account of the petitioner i.e A/c.No.0446655100001120, immediately, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI K.P. SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI T. SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, SPL PP FOR CBI The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No.2261 of 2025

29.L2.2025 Between: Padala Srinivasa Reddy, AND IDBI Bank Limited, Regional Office, at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Paradc, Mumbai Rep. by its Regional Manager & 3 others ORDER: ...Petitioner ...Respondents 'l'his Writ Pctition is filed qucstioning the' action of respondents 1 and 4 in not releasing the original documents, w,hich were mortgaged with rcspondcnt No.2 - Bank to',1'ards the security against loan account of the petitioner uide Account No.044665510000ll2O, in spite ol clcaring the entire loan amorrnt and a. No Due Certificate dated O1.O7.2O25, was also issued by respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust \ 2 I- \,"q*cE"q \.' \ : unconstitutional and in vi.ration of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 4 to release the original documents which were mortgaged as security for s,bject loan accounts of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr K.Gani Reddy, rearned cou'sel fcrr the petitioner, sri K.P.saradhi, learned counsel for respondent Ncls.1 to 3 and Sri 1'.Srujan Kumar l?eddy, rearned special public prosecutor for CBI, for respondent No.4. perused the record.

3. when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 13.0r.2023 passed by this c.urt in w.p.No.23651 of 2c2o and therefore, the same order may be passed in this w,rit petition as well.

4. Learned Speciar public prosecut.r for cBI, f<rr respondent No'4 vehemently opposed lbr the same stating that the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph No.6 of the petition about non release of oi'iginar documents pertaining to mortgage properties even after clearing entire loan amount and issuing no due certificate is a matter of fact. It is submitted that crearing the amounts due to IDBI Bank and issuance of no due certificate I v 3 does not take away the criminal liability of petitioner/borrower. In fact the petitioner accepted the settlement of the liabilities with a condition that the settlement is subject to continuation of criminal proceedings pending with CBIIED and release o[ title deeds will be after obtaining clearance from CBI/ED. But, the petitioner no\,v came forward with the present request which is contrary to the terms and conditions accepted by them at the time of settlement. It is also submitted that, the petitioner is not clear as to which mortgaged property and title deeds he is referring to. Therefore, it is stated that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 3 filed a counter affidavit denying all allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner suppressed the'fact that the matter is under investigation by the CBI (Crime No.6(A)/2OLB under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)&(d), l20B r lw 42O, 4O9, 468, 47ll for fraud in obtaining the loan. All documents relating to the fraudulent loan have been seized by the CBI and are in its custody, including the title deeds. The bank has confirmed that the documents can be produced if required for investigation or t I 4 trial' Therefore, the petitioner's craim that the bank is retaining the originar documents after loan clearance is incorrect and unsupported. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6' Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that this court, on 17.L2.2025, considering the similarity of the present writ petition with w'P'No.23651 of 2020, wherein the petitioner therein was directed to file an undertaking stating that he ,,vill produce the property documents as and when required by the investigating authority, this court ,lirected the petitio.er herein arso to file similar undertaking. In compriance with the direction of this court on 7 ' 17.12.2o2s, the petitioner fired an Affidavit dated tg.12.2o2s, u,herein he undertook at paragraph No.4 as follov's: "rn view of the said direction of this Hon,bre court, r hereby undertake to produce and submit the originar documents if and as and when required by the Central Bureau of lnvestigation (CBl). Hence, this affidavit.,,

8. Taking on record the petitioner via Affidavit dated ,/' ,, undertaking furnished by the 18.72.2025, the writ petition is / / 5 disposed of directing the responde nt Nos.l to 3 (IDBI Bank) to take all steps to return all the original documents that were deposited by the petitioner in connection rn,ith the Loan Account No.044665510000112O within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. ASSISTAN //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Regional Manager, lDBl Bank Limited, Regional Office, at lDBl Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Branch Mangar 500001 , Rep. by its Zonal Office.

2. IDBI Bank'Limited, Zonal Office, 5-9-89/1and2, Chapel Road, Hyderabad- 3. lDBl Bank Limited, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad- 500007, Rep. by its 4. The Superinlendent of Police, CBI/ACB Police Station, Hyderabad- 500095. 5. One CC to SRI K. GANI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SR! K.P. SARADHI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI T. SRUJAN KUIVIAR REDDY, SPL PP for CBI [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies BN r TKS M/ t \ To, HIGH COU DATED:2911212025 , C) THE S T4 ( 0 5 Fr.B nn t ( o Ei WP.No.22611 of 2025 DISPOSIN OF THE WRIT PETITION G c o 3 U 6