APHC010217112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1115/2025 Between: 1. GORLE SATTI BABU, W/O GORLE NOOKU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION TIFFIN CENTRE R/O H,NO 1-89, RAVIKAMATHAM MANDAL, MANUPAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-531025 ...PETITIONER AND 1. SANJAY MALHOTRA IAS, 1THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING 18TH FLOOR SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD MUMBAI 400001. 2. SRI UDAY SUVARNA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HIRANANDANI FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED REGD OFFICE 514, DALAMAL TOWERS, 211, FPJ MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400021 ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondents herein by summoning for disobeying the orders of the Honble Court dated 02.12.2024 passed in W.P. No. 27890 of 2024 in not following and implementing the directions issued in the order which is nothing but wanton and deliberate under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in the interest of justice and may pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. D SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY 2. YELLATI NAGA SRINIVAS The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:1115 OF 2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27890 of 2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The allegation of the petitioner herein is that the respondent No.2 is not adhering to the guidelines issued by the respondent No.1 and threatening the petitioner through phone calls and visiting the premises of the petitioner even though this Court specifically directed the respondent No.2 to strictly adhere to the guidelines and instructions issued by respondent No.1. As such, the orders of this Court are not complied with. Hence, the contempt case. 4. For better understanding, the orders dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27890 of 2024 is extracted hereunder: “In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent herein, to ensure that the agents engaged by them for recovery of loan amounts shall strictly adhere to the guidelines and instructions issued by the 1st respondent and as hold by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra.” 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2, wherein it is specifically stated 4 that they have been adhering to the guidelines issued by respondent No. 1 and have never resorted to any unethical or violative conduct. It is further stated that they never threatened or demanded the petitioner in relation to the recovery. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner repeatedly requesting for one-time settlement with the respondents. Since the petitioner approaching for one-time settlement repeatedly, there could not have been any threatening or illegal behavior by the recovery agents of respondent No. 2 as alleged by him. Therefore, the present contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made by both learned counsel and on perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is observed that there are neither particulars such as dates when agents visited the petitioner’s house, nor there are any phone numbers of callers who allegedly threatened the petitioner through phone. If the respondents had indeed approached the petitioner’s house and harassed him physically or through phone calls, there would have been some evidence illustrating such harassment, which could have been described in the petitioner’s affidavit to prove violation of the Court’s orders or regulations of the RBI. In the absence of any such particulars or evidence filed herewith to show that the respondent No. 2 violated the orders of this Court, the petitioner’s allegations cannot be accepted to punish the respondents under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is settled law that contempt petitions must be strictly construed as a matter of procedure to establish the commission of an offence under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5 Without such proof, it cannot be held that the respondents committed an offence under these provisions. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, there is neither violation nor disobedience said to have been committed by the respondents in complying with the orders of the Court. As such, the contempt case is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. nothing is find violated from the affidavit filed by the respondents Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 16.09.2025 BSP 6 36 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.1115 of 2025 16.09.2025 BSP