The Telangana High Court has directed that the Manappuram Finance branch in Chennur, Mancherial district, which was involved in an embezzlement fraud case, be reopened on September 10.
The ruling by Justice N V Shravan Kumar, dated September 9, comes in response to a writ petition filed by the Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) challenging the police’s alleged unilateral closure of its branch.
The case stems from a complaint lodged by the State Bank of India’s Regional Manager in August 2025 alleging that a senior associate of the bank, Narige Ravinder, embezzled cash and gold ornaments valued at approximately Rs 1.10 crore and Rs 12.61 crore, respectively.
The investigation, as detailed in the court, has so far implicated 48 individuals and led to the recovery of 17.5 kg of gold from various finance companies.
Manappuram Finance approached the High Court arguing that the police action of closing their branch was illegal and that they were fully cooperating with the investigation.
The company’s counsel stated in court that they were ready to reopen the premises in the presence of a company representative.
The police, on the other hand, contended that the company had closed the branch themselves, hindering the recovery of 1142.02 grams of gold, which was allegedly pledged by the accused individuals.
Story continues below this ad
During the proceedings, Justice Shravan Kumar emphasized the need for both parties to act in a manner that facilitates the investigation while allowing the company’s legitimate business to continue.
“This writ petition is disposed of directing both the parties to open the petitioner branch at Chennur, Market Road, Mancherial District, in the presence of concerned respondent officials and the Regional Manager of the petitioner company or representative on his behalf, at 3 pm on 10.09.2025 by way of videographing,” the judge stated.
The court’s order further clarifies the investigative process.
“The concerned investigation officer shall take up the investigation and record the details by following due procedure as contemplated under law,” the judge remarked. He also issued a clear directive to the petitioner company to cooperate. “The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation,” he said.
In a move to prevent any further disruption to the company’s operations, the judgment also said, “It is also made clear that during the course of investigation, the petitioner’s branch may continue its operations without causing any inconvenience to the investigation”.
Story continues below this ad
The court concluded the matter by stating, “there shall be no order as to costs.”
