Dande Naga Ajaykumar vs Union Of India,
2025 Latest Caselaw 6490 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dande Naga Ajaykumar vs Union Of India, on 13 November, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                    WRIT PETITION No.30145 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr.Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for

petitioner and Mr.Sudharshan Narahari, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.3. Perused the record.

2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for remaining respondents.

3. 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 of the said order reads as under:

"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 rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 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 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).

9. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of."

4. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents have no objection to

the same.

5. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for the reasons alike, this

writ petition is disposed 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 12.08.2022 and also the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash

Kaur' 1s case and ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma' 2s case, while

recovering the loan amounts from the petitioner. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

Dated 13.11.2025 dgr

1 (2007) 2 SCC 711 2 (2008) 7 SCC 532