Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/30314/2025 of YALAMACHILI JAHNAVI Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA on 11 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30314/2025 Between: 1. YALAMACHILI JAHNAVI, D/O NARENDRA BABU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 74 COLONY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), ANDHRA PRADESH - 520007. 1. RESERVE BANK
APHC010584032025
IN THE
MONDAY, T
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. YALAMACHILI JAHNA
YEARS, R/O D.NO
COLONY, PATAMATA
- 520007.
1. RESERVE BANK OF
CENTRAL OFFICE
MUMBAI -400001.
2. THE BRANCH MAN
CENTRE (RAC) D.
FLOOR,
SRI
K
VISAKHAPATNAM, A
3. THE
SUPERINTEN
DISTRICT
POLICE
MACHILIPATNAM, KR
4. THE STATION HOUS
KANURU MAIN ROAD
Petition under Article
circumstances stated in th
pleased topleased to issue
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 30314/2025
AVI, D/O NARENDRA BABU AGED A
O. 74-14-65, MEGA TOWNSHIP, N
A, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), ANDHRA P
...PE
AND
F INDIA, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED
BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SING
NAGER, AXIS BANK LTD. - RETAI
NO. 43-9-141, SRI GAYATRI TOWE
KANYA
MAIN
ROAD,
DONDA
NDHRA PRADESH - 530016.
DENT
OF
POLICE,
KRISHNA
OFFICE,
LAKSHMI
TALKIES
RISHNA DISTRICT-521001.
SE OFFICER, PENAMALURU POLICE
D, ASHOK NAGAR A.P. 520007.
...RESPON
226 of the Constitution of India praying e affidavit filed therewith, the High Co a writ, order or direction, more particu RC,J
No.30314 of 2025
H
ATI
ABOUT 31
NEW RTC
PRADESH
TITIONER
OFFICER
H ROAD,
L ASSET
RS, 4TH
APARTHY
DISTRICT
CENTRE
STATION,
NDENT(S):
g that in the
urt may be
ularly one in
RC,J
the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS a. Declare the action of the 2nd Respondent and its recovery agents in threatening and intimidating the petitioner and his family members for non-payment of certain EM Is related Personal Loan A/c No. PPR007510532363 under the guise of recovery as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and also contrary to the RBI Fair Practices Code, And also Direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 13.10.2025 in accordance with law as per the established procedure b. And also Direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to initiate necessary actions as per report dated 13.10.2025 lodged by the Petitioner ensure that no coercive steps or harassment are caused to the petitioner and his family by the 2nd Respondent or its recovery agents c. Pass interim orders restraining the 2nd Respondent and its agents from visiting the petitioners residence or making any threatening calls or acts of intimidation pending disposal of this writ petition d. pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant an interim direction restraining the 2nd Respondent, its officials, agents, or any persons acting on its behalf, from initiating or taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner and his family members, including through alleged recovery agents, in connection with the recovery of instalments covered under Personal Loan A/c No. PPR007510532363 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SATYA SREENIVASA RAO K
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME
2.KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR
3.
The Court made the following:
RC,J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent no.2 in harassing the petitioner and his family members by sending loan recovery agents to the house of the petitioner, by making continuous phone calls and humiliating him in front of neighbours without following the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide Memo No.RBI/2022-23/108, dated 12.08.2022.
2. Heard Sri Satya Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Kunuku Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent nos. 3 & 4.
3. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. V. Prakash Kaur and others1 has categorically held that the practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law if the borrower have committed default in payment of the installments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics. However, as the respondents contend that they never sent agents and they have an intention to follow law for recovery, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition.
1 (2007) 2 SCC 711 n
RC,J
5. In view of the above, respondent no.2 should resort to procedure recognized by law if the borrower have committed default in payment of the installments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the respondent no.2 is not precluded to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of money, if any, payable by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 12th October, 2026
RR