Telangana High Court
WP/2011/2026 of Adishetty Chinna Ankaiah Vs The Reserve Bank of India on 23 January 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEE WRIT PETITION NO: 201'l OF 207n [ 33oo I ...PETITIONER Between: AND Adishetty Chinna Ankaiah, S/o A .
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEE
WRIT PETITION NO: 201'l OF 207n
[ 33oo I
...PETITIONER
Between:
AND
Adishetty Chinna Ankaiah, S/o A. Ayyavarappa, aged about 61 years, Rl/o H. No.
10-7613819, Satyanarayana colony, keesara, nagaram, Rangareddy, Hyderabad - s00083, T.s.
1. The Reserve Bank of lndia, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai- 400001
2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Retail - ARD, 6-3-1 109/1, 2nd Floor, West wing, Jewel Pawani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, HYDERABAD, Rep.
by its Authorized Officer,
3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, CIN L 651 10[/H1985PLC038137 Registered Otfice.27 BKC,C27, G Block, Bandra Kuria Complex, Bandra(E), MUMBAI- 400 051, lndia. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.
4. Kotak lnfinity, Zone 2, 4th Floor, Building No. 21, Off W.E. High Way, General A.K Vaidya Marg, Malad(E), Mumbai 400 097. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.
.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or a Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring high handed action of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in violently interfering with the peaceful life and liberty'of the Petitioner's under the guise of recovery of loan pending consideration of the Petitioners OTS
proposal made under representation dated 25.10.2O25 on the strength of dues in statement of account shown as on 18.07.2023 contrary to the Circular issued by the Respondent No.1, Reserve Bank Of lndia, vide proceedings RBll2O22-2311O8, DOR.ORG.REC .65/21.04 .15812022-23, Dt. 12.08.2022 and also in contrary to the various; judgments passed by this Hon'ble High Court as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14, 19(tXg) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also the constitutional guarantee under Article 3004 and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to 4, to not to take any coercive steps till consideration of their representation dated 25.10.2025.
lA NO: 1Ol:2026
Petiti,rn 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 to direct the ResponCent No.2 to 4 to not to take any coercive steps till the Petitioners representati,:n dated 25.10.2025 is considered.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. LAKSHMI KANTH
Counsel for the Respondent No 1: SC FOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondents No 2To 4; -- The Court made the following: ORDER
i
i
I
I
5 i3n
wp_2011_2026
NBK, J
IN THE
H
TE
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICB NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 2011 of 2026
23'd January.2026
BETWEEN:
Adishetty Chinna Ankaiah
Petitioner
ANT)
I . The Reserve Bank of India, and others Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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:
The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner, and also his grievance, is that the petitioner obtained Home Loan of Rs.27,04,084 at 9o/o per annum interest rate originally from the erstwhile Duetsche Postbank in the year 2011, and the said Bank had been taken over by IWs First Blue Bank, and subsequently the Bank amalgamated with Piramal Housing and ultimately the respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank had taken over the entire business of the Bank, thereby the petitioner now owes the housing loan dues to the respondent- Kotak Mahindra Bank. It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to COVID and subsequent hardships, the petitioner could not make the payments. Ultimately, the petitioner, with an intention to settle the entire outstanding loan amount under a One Time Settlement, addressed a representation letter dated 25.10.2025 to the respondent-Bank, howeveq there is no response to the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2025. The petitioner is apprehensive of coercirq steps from the respondent-Bank, and in such an event the petitioner would blput to irreparable loss, and therefore the petitioner seeks a direction ,/l wp_2011_2028 NBK, J to the respondent-Bank to consider his representation dated 25.10.2025 and not to take any coercive steps without following due process of law. The petitioner also allege's that the officials of respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank are interfbring with his peacefirl tif'e and liberty and threatening to repay the loans and resortirrg to highhanded action. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Hear,J Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel fbr the petitioner; and learned Sta;rding Counsel f,or respondent-Reserve Bank of lndia. Perused the record.
3. Learrred counsel for the petitioner essentially contends that the respondent-Bank officials are bound to follow the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India for recovery of loans, and they cannot interfere with personal life or threaten the loan applicants for repayment of loan.
4. Havir,g considered the respective contentions, it is to be noted that a Loan agreernent between the Bank and the respective party is a contractual agreement, whereunder the parties expressly consent to the terms and conditions ittcorltorated in the contractual agreement document. In the instant case, the Home l-oan contractual terms are strictly between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank; horvever, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that the respondent-tlank is duty bound to adhere to the guidelines and norrns specified by the l't rescondent-Reserve Bank of India, both with regard to disbursal and collection o1' loan atnounts, and the Banks cannot traverse beyond such stipulated guidelines and directions/norms of the I't respondent, by taking recourse to arbitrary or unlawful procedures.
5. In this connection, ii is to be noted that this Court in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, ty refering to the law laid down by the llon'ble \ \
wp_2011_2026 NBK, J ( Supreme Court in TCICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaurr, and ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma2 directed as follows: "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 viotation of the right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents, to ensure that the agent engaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, shall strictly fotlow the guidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of lndia and also the judgments of the Hon'ble supreme court in lGlcl Bank Ltd., vs. Prakash Kaur's case (1 supra) and lClCl Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (2 supra)"
6. Therefiore, in terms of the orders in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for reasons alike, the respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank is directed to strictly follow the RBI guidelines for recovery of the Home Loan from the petitioner.
7. With regard to the representation dated 25.10.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank intending to settle the entire loan outstanding, under a One Time Settlement, this Court is inctined to direct the respondent-Bank to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pend if an stand closed. ./ 1^lzooty2scc 711 '(2008) TSCC 532 Sd/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a To, 4{- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The Reserve Bank of lndia, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai- 400001
2. One CC to SRl. S LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate IOPUC]
3. One CC to STANDING'COUNSEL FOR RBI IOPUCI
4. Two CD Copies NAI\T
, , HIGH TSOURT DATED:2310112026 ORDEIR WP.Nc,.2011 of 2026 DISPO:SING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
{ HE STA 3 06ttB2o26 : ]t{ b T\eb