IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONS No. 43407 OF 2022

24.02.2026 Between:

Sridhar Purekar ….. Petitioner And State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Home Loan Division, Secunderabad ….. Respondent

O R D E R:

Petitioner states that he availed home loan from respondent bank of Rs.7,72,000/-, which was disbursed in three phases at the rate of Rs.2,57,500/- each; at the time of disbursement, respondent bank obtained six blank cheques towards security in respect of loan Account No.30363578633. It is stated, subsequently, petitioner noticed various discrepancies at the time of issuance and utilization of cheques, which occurred due to the negligence of the staff of respondent bank in discharge of their duties. Petitioner is stated to have submitted ECS authorization authorizing salary deduction towards EMIs, however, the bank failed to deduct the salary till February, 2012, i.e. for about four years from 2008 to 2012. Respondent bank did not verify its records and did not issue any notice to petitioner during the said period. Upon noticing the same, petitioner approached respondent bank and brought to its notice the negligence in not deducting the salary. Thereafter, respondent charged interest on the EMIs for the said period and added the same to the principal amount and commenced deduction of salary from 2012 onwards. It is asserted, there was no fault on his part and no interest ought to have been charged for the period from 2008 to 2012. As per the loan schedule, the tenure of loan was 162 months payable at Rs.9,431/- per month and the total loan liability was Rs.15,27,822/-, which would have been fully discharged by November, 2021. However, petitioner paid total amount of Rs.17,44,033/-, resulting in excess payment, yet respondent bank continued to deduct EMIs instead of returning the excess amount.

1.1. Petitioner states that he approached respondent bank on several occasions and also submitted a written representation in April, 2021 requesting rectification and refund of excess amount, but none of the requests was considered. The staff of the respondent bank continued to visit petitioner’s house and collect EMIs. Consequently, petitioner issued legal notice dated 04-08-2021 through counsel, narrating the entire facts and calling upon the bank to verify the loan account and refund the excess amount paid. Even after receipt of legal notice, the bank neither replied nor took any action. Thereafter, petitioner is stated to have filed Writ Petition No.8601 of 2022, which was disposed of on 21-02-2022, directing respondent bank to examine petitioner’s representation dated April, 2021 and legal notice dated 04-08-2021 and to pass orders in accordance with law within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Despite lapse of more than seven months, respondent neither passed any order nor responded, which necessitated to file Contempt Case No.1606 of 2022, during the hearing of which, on 14-10-2022, respondent submitted that an order rejecting petitioner’s representation had already been passed on 03-10-2022, impugned in this Writ Petition and served on him.

1.2. According to petitioner, under the impugned order, respondent demanded payment of Rs.7,53,053/- with interest at 16.35%, whereas petitioner had already paid Rs.17,44,033/- against the total loan liability of Rs.15,27,822/-, resulting in excess payment of Rs.2,16,211/- along with interest at 16.35% per annum. Respondent rejected his representation without proper verification of records. The impugned order refers to cancellation of flat allotted to petitioner by Rajeev Swagruha Corporation Limited and refund of Rs.15,71,586/-, but they continued to collect EMIs. It is stated, cancellation of allotment was done by officials of Rajeev Swagruha Corporation Limited, therefore, no violation of loan terms can be attributed to him. When respondent had already collected the e