AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent nos.3 to 17/banks in harassing the petitioners and their family members by sending loan recovery agents to the house of the petitioners, 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.
Heard Sri Santhosh Sanke, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri B.M.Krishna Patibandla, learned Standing Counsel for Aditya Birla Bank and Sri Kunuku Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.5,10 & 12, Sri Dasam Durga Shiva Sai, learned counsel for respondent no.9 and HVSSRR Chandrakanth, learned counsel for respondent nos.15 & 16.
Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
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.
In view of the above, respondent nos.3 to 8,14 & 17 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.
So far as respondent nos.9 to 13,15 & 16 are concerned, in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private non-banking financial company (NBFC) or private commercial entities. Therefore, this writ petition filed against respondent nos. nos.9 to 13,15 & 16 is not maintainable and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedies by approaching appropriate Forum.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the respondent nos. 3 to 8,14 & 17 are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of money, if any, payable by the petitioners. Further, the petitioners are at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for getting their grievance redressed against respondent nos. nos.9 to 13,15 & 16. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.