Kondeti Srinivas v. 1. Union of lndia

3, HDFC BANK Ltd, Rep by its Chief Manager PN 26, 33/48634/8, Gr FIr, Delta House, Sy No 68, Allwyn Cross Road lvliyapur, Hyderabad - 500049 4. SBI Cards and Payments Services Limited (SBl Card)., Rep by its Chief Manager, DLF Cyber City, Tower C, Block 2, Building 3 DLF lnfinity Towers, 12th Floor, Gurugram, HR - 122002

5. IDFC FIRST BANK, Rep by its Chief Manager Ground Floor, Plot No 6-7, Survey No 68, Door No 1-121lKzl6-7, Nearby Athidhi Restuarant, Miyapur, Serilingampalle (trtl ), Telangana 500049

6. Kotak Mahindra bank Ltd, Rep. by its chief [\,4anager Ground Floor - Office No '103, Premier Building, Plot No 35,36,41 86 42 Survey No 76, Madhapur Village, Senilingampally, Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana 50008'l

7. lClCl Bank, Rep. by its Chief I\,4anager, ICICI Bank Towers, Financial Dist, Plot No'12 Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032 8. HDB Financial Services Limited, Rep by its Chief fvlanager, Ground Floor, Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, N4ahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034 S, RBL Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Chief Manager Shop no 5-4110 86 5-411 1 Ground floor, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500050 '10. Piramal Finance Limited, Rep. by its Chief Manager 601, 6th Floor, Amiti Building, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opp. Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla (W), It/umbai, IVH 400070 l l.lNDUS|ND Bank Limited, Rep by its Chief l\/anager C9VP+QVB, Hitech City Rd, Arunodaya Colony, Sri Sai Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081 Petition under Article 226 ol 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 ...RESPONDENTS nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 11 in attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner in an arbitrary, illegal, and high- handed 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. RBI/2022- 231108, DOR.ORG REC.65/21 .04.15812022-23, and further declaring the inaction of respondent No. 2 in enforcing the said Circular as u nconstitutio na I and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of lhe Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any coercive or unlawful recovery measures against the petitioner and to strictly comply with the due process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery proceedings, and further restrain respondent Nos.3 to 11, their agents, recovery agents, executives, managers, or any person acting on their behalf from engaging in any acts of intimidation. harassment, humiliation, or intrusion into the privacy of the petitioner or his family members, referees or friends, including persistent or anonymous calls, threatening messages, or physical visits to the petitioner's premises, and further direct respondent No. 2 to enforce the said RBI Circular in letter and spirit and to initiate appropriate and stringent action against the errant officials of respondent Nos. 3 to 11 for violating legal norms, and pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 11 not to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in strict adherence to the Circular dated I 2.O8.2022. Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY Respondent No.1 : SMT. B.KAVITHA YADAV, CENTRAL GOVT Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SC FOR RBI Respondent No.7: Ms. M.V.KlNl Respondent No.10: SRI SUDHARSHAN NARAHARI Respondent Nos.3 TO 6,8,9 & 11:-- COUNSEL The Court made the following: ORDER 1 w9 _21463 -2025 NBK, J THT] HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 27863 of 2025 OIIDI.]II: The case ol the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he availed loans and Credit Cards from respondents No.3 to 11 (who are Bank and financial institutions), and he has been promptly repaying by borrowing ttorn others, and he did not make the last lew payments to the respondents No.3 to I l; and the petitioner is in ditficult situation in meeting his expenses. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the representatives/agents of rcspondents No.3 to l1 are continuously calling, and intruding into the house olthe petitioner and threatening him to repay the loans, and that the procedure adopted by the respondents No.3 to l l is not as per the RBI Guidelines for recovery of loans, and therefore the petitioner seeks a direction to the rcspondents No.3 to I 1 to follow due process of law for recovery ol loans.

1. Counter alfidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No.6-Kotak Mahindra Bank, and respondent No.l0-Piramal Finance Limited, essentially corltending that they are scrupulously adhering to the RBt Circular dated 11.08.2022 fbr recovery of loans, and the allegations of harassment, intinridation, coercive recovery, or any unlawful conduct by the Bank stalf agcnts arc categorically denied. \

3. Heard Mr. Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-RBI. Perused the record.

4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, by referring to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaurr, and I (2007) 2 scc 711 \- ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma2 directed the banks and flnancial institutions to strictly lbllow the RBI guidelines for recovery of loans, and therefore the respondents No.3 to I I may be directed to follow the guidelines and not to trespass into petitioner's house or not to harass him.

5. Leamed Standing Counsel tbr RBI subrnits that all the Banks and financial institutions are iluty bound to lollow the guidelines stipulated in the Circular dated 11.08.2022 while anempting to recover the loans, and the Banks/financial institutions cannot deviate from those guidelines.

6. Flaving considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that this Court in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, directed as follorvs: "8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 for recovery of loan amount from the petitioner, amounts to violation of the right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 ot the Constitution of lndia, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents, to ensure that the agent engaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, shall strictly follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of lndia and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lClCl Bank Ltd., vs. Prakash Kaur's case (1 supra) and lClCl Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (2 supra)" 7 . Accordingly. in tenns of the Order d ated25.04.2024 in W.P.No.5200 ol 2024, and tbr reasons alike. the writ petition is disposed o1'. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. (2008) 7 SCC 532 SD/.C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR To ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER New Delhi - .1 10001 1 Jl." i:grgt!ry Uni91 of tndia, Ministry of Finance, 2. lhe Chief General Manager, ReserveBank of lndi a (RBl), 6, Sansad Marg, 3 one cc to sRl BONTHU LOKESH PHANTNDRA REDDY, Advocare lopucl 4. One CC to Srr/r B KAVITHA yADAV, CENTRAL G-OW iouirl"dEitUpJCj 5. One CC to Ms M.V.KlNt, Advocate tOpUCl 6 One CC to SRt SUDHARSHAN runnnnnni, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies w Delhi PSK HIGH COURT DATED:3111012025 I ORDER WP.No.27863 of 2025 liiE IAc I .c (r',o * t0 rt8 20fr a\ t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o t