Kavali Soujanya vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 6579 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kavali Soujanya vs The Union Of India on 18 November, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                  WRIT PETITION No.26603 of 2025
ORDER:

Heard Mr.M.Keshav Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner,

Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for

respondent No.1, Ms.K.Ramya, learned counsel for respondent No.8

and Mr.B.Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.9. 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 Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. 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 to scrupulously

follow the guidelines/instructions in the RBI Circular dated

12.08.2022, and 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 18.11.2025 dgr

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