Skip to main content

State Bank of India : Bank cancels loan after approval, set to pay 1 lakh fine

Cancelling a loan that it had sanctioned has earned State Bank of India a stiff fine of 1 lakh.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favour of a garment export company and directed SBI to pay the owner of the firm the sum as compensation for causing him mental agony.

The firm's proprietor, K Ramani, applied for a loan of 24 lakh from the Small and Medium Enterprise City Credit Centre of State Bank of India, Egmore.

In his submission to the consumer redressal commission, he said bank officials thoroughly scrutinised documents pertaining to the expansion of his enterprise and sanctioned a loan of 22.5 lakh. He submitted all documents required for the loan, including the title deed of land owned by his daughter as mortgage.

However, the bank later refused to release the loan, stating that it found discrepancies in the submitted documents. The bank's action was arbitrary and unjust, Ramani said.

In its counter, the bank said it did release the loan because Ramani had cited an inflated amount for purchases and bank officials had doubts regarding a business unit that had placed an order with his firm. The bank said it could cancel the disbursement of a loan at any stage if doubts arose regarding the viability of the project for which it was extending credit. It said Ramani's daughter was a minor and could not execute a title deed.

The bench comprising president R Regupathi and judicial member A K Annamalai pointed out that the bank had not verified all documents before sanctioning the loan.

Though the bank had the authority to reject the loan, the bench questioned the manner in which it exercised that authority, stating that it should not have caused "embarrassment to a customer" and made him "run from pillar to post for several months". The bench said the bank's refusal to disburse the loan after sanctioning it amounted to deficiency in service.

It directed SBI to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh for mental agony to the complainant and 10,000 as costs. However, it said it could not issue directions to the bank to disburse the loan.

Article referred: http://www.4-traders.com/STATE-BANK-OF-INDIA-9058834/news/State-Bank-of-India--Bank-cancels-loan-after-approval-set-to-pay-1-lakh-fine-17748683/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more