High Court · 2025

c irc u m sta n ce s stated i n tn" Irio [ il :i,,i: pleased to isr;ue an appropriate writ, b;j;;, or"dir".tion, mordparticutarry in the nature of writ of Manda*", o".raring ft," of responJ"nTlvor. 3 to 12 in attempting to recover amounts .rro, inl p;;i;;;", in an arbitrary, iregat, and high-handed manner without iollowing th;'A;'process of raw and in bratant vioration of ttre -Reservs errr. 9q rndi-a circrL, g9o iz-.ilaioz, o.rrinrg No. RBtt2022-23tn08' oon'bn6.'nec.oszr |oilite,ozzasi,- iii'f-ri-n", decrarins the inaction ol respondent rtro. i- and viorative of Arricrer i;: ig, in-a-i\';ith" constitution of rndia, and _circurar "" ,n.on.titutionar 1, "nro-*ing consequenfly direct the respondent ,rft,oriti; ; refrain iro, ,no"rtaking any coercive or u,tawfut recovJry"L"rrrr". againsi tne Jetiiior"r-,rno to stricry comply with the.{ue proc"tt'oi law anJ tn"""rror"raio circuiai ii arl recovery proceedings, and further restiain respondent Nos. agents, executives, ,rnrg";,' or. 1:?.12,their agents, recovery person acting on their beharf from engaging in any acts of intiriioaiion, narisJm"ni,'r,r.iriation, "ny p'vacv of the petitioner or nis ram;il ;;;=.rr!,"."f"r"". ti rii"nis, inctuoing or intrusion into the persistent or anonymous calts, tn1"ri9.iro"il="Jr"n"s, petitioner's prernises, and rrrinl, oir".i r";il;"ri rrr". z to enrorce the said RBt physicar visits to the circutar in tetter and spirit ,il il j.i,!" !-J*il;i" ,no. strinsent action asainst the errant officiars-or'r"rponi""nt rvor. 3-i;-ii'i;r viotating regar norms, and pending disposat of.the *rii p"tiiion, oireciln"-r"rpondent Nos. 3 to 12not to resort to any c:oercive *"ffiri"" against tne-pe-titione_r except through ra*ur means and in strict adherence to the COUNSCI fOr thE PEtitiONEr: SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY counser for the Respondent No.1: sc FoR .ENTRAL GOVT counser for the Respondent No.3: sRt M.p. KASHYAP Gounsel for the Respondent No.4: sRt B. sRrHARr counsel for the rRespondent No.5: sRr R. RAJENDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI V. SANTOSH ori"J r 2.og.2022. 'RASAD -circulai -or Counsel for the llespondent No.9: SRt A. PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the lRespondent No.2,6,8,10 to 12: - - -' The Court made the following: ORDER '/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESI{ BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.3OO86 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Sri B. Lokesh Phanindra, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, for respondent No. 1; Sri M.P.Kashyap,' learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri B. Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Sri R. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.S; Sri V. Santosh, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Sri A. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.9.

2. 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 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated

25.04.2024 and therefore, the same order may be passed in this writ petition as well. The operative portion <lf the said order reads as under: '8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.4 to T for recovery of loan amount from the petitioner, amounts to violation of the rights guarantced under Articles 14 and 2L of the Constitution of India, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents, to ensure that the agents engaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, shall strictly follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaurrs case (1 supra) and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma,s case (2 suprai. 9. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of."

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.l, 3, 4, s, T and 9 have no ( d :: i I I i : I 2 objection.

4. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by this court in W'P'No'52O0 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for the ..r=o.r= alike, this writ petition is d:sposed of directing the respondent authorities and their agents to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India in its Circular dated l2.o8.2o22 and, also the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. prakash Kaur,ls case and IcIcI Bank v. shanti Devi sharma,2s case, while recovering the loan amounts frorn the petitioner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ,(ao'+) ?. ;cc ?tt rlrc"E) + qcc 'qtlL Sd/-L.VIJAYA LAXMI ISTANT REGISTRAR ASS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I 13: ifs ji:l{il' # I I 5Y( sLii:s:s:hYtt"il, :lJ I fl, tutzl#: li o, o, rh e c h i er _ General Nfanager, 3' The chief tvtariioer,.HDFc Bank !imjtg{, sy No.68, Derta House, pN 26, ir4tB, Gr Flr, Alwyn X R";d; M,y;il;, Fi)d"r"b;d,.r;Hiffi; 3BS;J. \\ To,

9. q 10 11

12. 13 14 15. 16. 17 18. 19. 20. PMK M ;i PUCI / HIGH COURT DATED rl2l11l202S \ ORDER WP.No.30086 of 20Zs ''iilE s I .ri{ C) 1 6 i'liH zfllfi * : &.r- t -\ t 1 t DISPOSINC} OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L "t