IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No. 31485 of 2025

02^nd December, 2025

BETWEEN:

M/s Manikanta Traders, represented by its

Proprietor Mr. Kothapalli Srinivas Rao S/o Bucha Rao

… Petitioner

AND

1. The Union of India, represented by

Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, and Others

… Respondents

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that it

availed loans/credit facilities from respondents No.3 to 9 (who are Banks and financial institutions), and it has been promptly repaying by borrowing from others, and it did not make the last few payments to the respondents No.3 to 9; and the petitioner is in difficult situation in meeting his expenses. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the representatives/agents of respondents No.3 to 9 are continuously calling, and intruding into the house of the petitioner and threatening to repay the loans, and that the procedure adopted by the respondents No.3 to 9 is not as per the RBI Guidelines for recovery of loans, and therefore the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondents No.3 to 9 to follow due process of law for recovery of loans.

2. Heard Mrs. B. Kavitha Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appears for the Central Government; Learned Standing Counsel for 2^nd respondent-RBI;

Mrs. M.R.A. Srilakshmi, learned counsel appears for the HDFC Bank.

3. Learned counsel Mrs. M.R.A. Srilakshmi essentially contends that the petitioner has availed loans/credit facility and has defaulted in monthly repayments, and that the respondents are scrupulously adhering to the RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022 for recovery of loans, and the allegations of harassment, intimidation, coercive recovery, or any unlawful conduct by the Bank staff agents are categorically denied.

3. 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 Kaur¹ , and ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma² directed the banks and financial institutions to strictly follow the RBI guidelines for recovery of loans, and therefore the respondents No.3 to 9 may be directed to follow the guidelines and not to trespass into petitioner’s house or not to harass him.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for RBI submits that all the Banks and financial institutions are duty bound to follow the guidelines stipulated in the Circular dated 12.08.2022 while attempting to recover the loans, and the Banks/financial institutions cannot deviate from those guidelines.

5. Having 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 follows:

“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 of the Constitution of India, 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 India and also the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd., vs. Prakash Kaur’s case (1 supra) and ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma’s case (2 supra)”

7. Accordingly, in terms of the Order dated 25.04.2024 in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, and for reasons alike, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

02^nd December, 2025 ksm