IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

13^th APRIL, 2026 Between:

Gangireddy Padmaja … Petitioner AND The Union of India, and 4 others.

… Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “…. to issue any Writ, Order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in continuing to report/list the name of the Petitioner as a “Defaulter” or maintaining a “Suit Filed” status on the Credit Information List maintained by the Respondent No.4 as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional more particularly violating Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Petitioner further being in direct violation of the Settlement Agreement dated 21.03.2017 and the RBI Master Directions and Consequently, Directing Respondent No.4 to delete forthwith the name of the Petitioner from and Credit information lists maintained by the Respondent No.4 and to pass such other order or order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Jithender, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No.1, M/s. N. Legal, Hyderabad for respondent No.2-R.B.I., and Mr. G. Satish Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.03.2010 the respondent No.3-bank sanctioned the credit facility to the respondent No.5-Company. The said loan is a “Term Loan for Portfolio Buyout” with limit of Rs.200 crores. On account of default, the petitioner was classified as “defaulter”. There was a one-time settlement between the lender and the borrower and as agreed, the amounts have already been paid. Currently, the petitioner does not owe any money to the respondent No.3-bank. Despite the same, the name of the petitioner is continued to be reflected as “defaulter” in the “suit filed” account in the capacity of Director.

4. Notice has been served on the respondents 2 and 5 and they reported no objection. The respondent No.3- bank, in spite of service of notice, did not appear before this Court to oppose the writ petition. Since the loan of respondent No.3-bank is settled through one time settlement and the same is acknowledged by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. OA/738/2017 (OA/440/2016), dated 07.03.2026, no purpose would be served by reflecting the name of the petitioner as a “defaulter” in “suit filed” account. In fact, the same would cause prejudice to her interest in securing credit facility in future.

5. In view of the aforementioned, the writ petition is allowed declaring the action of respondent No.3-bank in continuing to report/list the name of the petitioner as “defaulter” or maintaining a “suit filed” status on the Credit Information List maintained by respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, the respondent No.4 is hereby directed to delete the name of the petitioner as “defaulter” from the Credit Information List maintained by respondent No.4. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

___________________

RENUKA YARA, J Date: 13.04.2026 Isn THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Date: 13.04.2026 Isn