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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more