BHARGAVI KUNTRAPAKAM @ KUNTRAPAKAM BHARGAVI v. THE UNION OF INDIA
WP/19308/2025 · 2025-07-27
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26699 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26699 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
::1::
APHC010378032025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19308/2025 Between:
1. BHARGAVI KUNTRAPAKAM @ KUNTRAPAKAM BHARGAVI, W/O. N. PARTHASARTHI D.N0.1-101/B, GODUGUCHINTHA VILLAGE, PERUMALLAPALLI POST, VEDANTHAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,LNDIA-517569. PH9959465410. ...PETITIONER AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SASTRI BHAVAN. NEW DELHI. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI. 3. INFINITY FINCORP SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, CORPORATE AND REGISTERED OFFICE. UNIT NO.B/003, A GROUND FLOOR, 215- ATRIUM 151 ANDHERIKURLA ROAD, CHAKALA MIDC, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA-400093. 4. INFINITY FINCORP SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY -CUM-BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO.23-8-160/1,2ND FLOOR. NEW BALAJI COLONY, AIR BYPASS ROAD, BESIDE MORE SUPER MARKET, M.R.PALLI CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-
517501. ...RESPONDENT(S): This Court made the following ORDER:-
1.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
2
“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 AND 4 heran in appointing the agents to recover the exorbitrant amount from the petitioner by sending the above appointed agents to the petitioners residence and in making numerous calls to the petitioner for recovery of alleged exorbitrant amount through collection agents and the agents of the respondent No.3 AND 4 are trying to trespass into the residence of the petitioner and also trying to take the possession of the property and abusing the petitioner and her family members and also demanding huge amount from The petitioner and in making numerous calls to the petitioner for recovery of exorbitrant amount, as illegal arbitrary and also oppose to the verdict passed by the Apex Court reported as ICICI Bank Ltd Vs Prakash Kaur erported in 2007 2 Supreme Court Cases 711 as well as the rules framed by the 2nd respondent RBI and also oppose to all cannons of justice and consequentially direct the respondents 3 AND 4 herein not to harass the petitioner or to send their agents to the house of the petitioner in recovering his alleged dues as claimed by them without recoursing the procedure established under law for recovery of the same and also to follow the law established by the Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs Prakash Kaur reported in 2007 2 Supreme Court Cases 711 forthwith further direct the respondent No. 1 AND 2 to take stringent action against the respondents.
3 AND 4 herein for their illegal acts in sending their agents to the residence in abusing petitioner and her family members as well as in making numerous calls by the respondents 3 AND 4 as well as in trespassing into the house of the petitioner and to pass.....”
2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 3 and 4, a non-banking financial company, are causing harassment and taking
3 coercive steps against the petitioner, contrary to the regulations of respondent No. 2, i.e., the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 3 and 4, being a non-banking financial company, granted a personal loan in favour of the petitioner, and accordingly, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. As per the said loan agreement, both the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are required to abide by the terms of the said agreement.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.2 has issued regulations applicable to all financial institutions, including non-banking financial companies, directing them to adhere to the said regulations. He further relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur, wherein specific directions were issued to banks to comply with the regulations of the RBI. Therefore, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to similar relief, since respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are allegedly violating the RBI regulations.
4
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed along with the Writ Petition, it is observed that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are private limited companies registered as non-banking financial companies with respondent No. 2, for carrying on financial business within its jurisdiction, based on their financial capacity. The
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur, is not applicable to the present case, as ICICI Bank Ltd. is a registered and recognized scheduled bank which holds a banking license and renders various public duties, including implementation of several Central and State Government schemes across India for the benefit of the public at large. Therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, being a non-banking financial company, cannot be equated with a registered, licensed and recognized scheduled bank that discharges several public duties in the course of its financial business in compliance of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
7. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition, holding that the claim against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is not maintainable under the jurisdiction
5 conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the private institution.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 28.07.2025 klk
6 246
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO.19308 of 2025
28.07.2025 klk