Skip to main content

Can't reject education loan over arrears: High Court

Holding that banks cannot deny educational loans on the grounds that a student has examination arrears, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has directed a Canara Bank branch in Karaikudi in Sivaganga district to sanction Rs 3.60 lakh as loan to an engineering college student.
The student V P Infant Ranjith is pursuing BE Computer Science Engineering in a private engineering college near Chennai. His father V K Peter Rajan, an advocate, filed a petition stating that the Canara Bank, Sankarapuram Branch in Sivaganga had refused to sanction an education loan during 2011 stating that they had already reached the cumulative loan sanctioning limit for the year. The bank officials advised him to approach the next year.
The following year when he applied for a loan of Rs 3.60 lakh, the bank kept his application pending but orally indicated to him that since he is an advocate it would be difficult to recover the loan amount. Besides, Ranjith had failed in a subject in the second year and hence loan cannot be granted to him.
Refusing to accept the bank’s contention, Justice N Kirubakaran said in engineering education the compartmental system was followed (allowing students to clear arrears in subsequent semesters). “It is not fair on the part of the bank to reject the application on the ground that the student failed in one subject,” he said.
Justice Kirubakaran said, “The bank is granting educational loan subject to rules and regulations and if there is failure on repayment of loan, it is always open to the bank to take recovery action.”
Hence, he directed the bank to process the education loan within 10 days.


Comments

  1. vishal15 March 2019 at 17:00

    It was really pleasure to read such a beautiful piece of Article. It just should have elaborated more to get the proper insights but if you are looking for more information just continue to - Education Loans For Students

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown16 September 2020 at 18:49

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. Subhajit Roy31 December 2019 at 16:46

    Much obliged to you for sharing the information, I have the best information about Study Loan.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more