IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF

TELANGANA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No. 29898 OF 2025

07.01.2026

Between:

Vibha Kakade & two others

….. Petitioners

And

Reserve Bank of India & five others

….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner No.1 (co-applicant) with her ex-husband

Mr. Vimar Suhag (principal borrower) had availed home loan of Rs.27.50 lacs with ICICI Bank, Gandhidham Branch, Gujarat for which petitioners 2 and 3, parents of petitioner No.1 stood as guarantors and also mortgaged the property bearing Flat No. 506, Silicon Ridge, Attapur Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated, since April, 2022, both petitioner No.1 and her husband started living separately and from then, principal borrower defaulted in payment of home

loan.

1.1. It is stated, petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No. 643 of 2023 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Rajendernagar against Vimal Suhah seeking a direction for monthly payment of EMI dues. In the meanwhile, loan account was declared as a ‘Non Performing Asset’. While so, accepting the OTS proposal of petitioner No.1 for an amount of Rs.25.50 lacs, the bank issued a settlement offer letter dated 21.06.2024 and accordingly, petitioner No.1 on 29.06.2024 transferred the entire sum to the bank and requested Respondent No.6 to return all the documents related to the subject property. The ICICI Bank, Gandhidham Branch acknowledged payment and sent confirmation letter dated 29.04.2024 and they also sent letter dated 05.07.2025 to petitioner No.1 to collect documents from Respondent No.6 by 19.07.2024. However, Respondent No.6 refused to hand over all the documents citing pendency of suit. Petitioner No.1 therefore, is stated to have addressed representation dated 31.07.2025 to Respondent No.6 and also raised a complaint regarding imposition of conditions with Reserve Bank of India on 26.08.2024 which was closed as being sub-judice.

1.2. It is stated, Petitioner No.1 aggrieved by the RBI reply dated 24.10.2024, addressed another representation dated 28.10.2024 to RBI Ombudsman stating that injunction suit has no bearing on the bank and imposing conditions is in violation of Section 171 of the Contracts Act, 1976, however, petitioner No.1 has not received any response. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners Ms. Vala Srihitha submits that as the home loan account is settled by petitioner No.1, no prejudice would be caused to the bank due to pendency of suit and after satisfaction of Home loan, the bank cannot refuse to release the title documents. She relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar1 and that of Orissa High Court in Sujit Kumar Gosh v. SBI, 2024 SCC Online Ori 2632

3. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed counter stating that petitioner No.1 filed complaint dated 26.08.2024 through Complaint Management System (CMS) portal before the Reserve Bank of India against ICICI Bank; it was observed that complainant had selected the following option in CMS portal ‘the complaint is sub-judice / under arbitration / already dealt with on merits by a Court / Tribunal / Arbitrator / Authority’; therefore, the complaint was auto closed by the system as non- maintainable under Clause 16(1)(a) 10(2)(b)(ii) and accordingly, closure letter dated 26.08.2024 was issued to complainant and ICICI Bank. It is also stated, thereafter, petitioner No.1

1 (1992) 2 SCC 330

submitted representation dated 27.08.2024, based on which complaint was registered in CMS portal against ICICI Bank and the same was forwarded to the bank. On 05.09.2024, the bank replied that matter is under consideration in OS.No. 643 of 2023 and the same be withdrawn for releasing the property and borrower needs to take steps for withdrawl. Since the case is pending, complaint was closed on 16.03.2025. The Ombudsman followed the principles of natural justice and issued reasoned orders after examining every aspect o