Disposed

R.Mathiyalagan v. Bank of India

Madras HC5 Sept 2014WP(MD)/13286/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to sanction an education loan for his daughter. The court held that the Bank must assess the petitioner's credit worthiness based on the security he offers and directed him to submit relevant documents to the Bank.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to approach the Bank with documents proving his security capacity, and directed the Bank to assess his case and pass orders on merits within two weeks thereafter.

R.Mathiyalagan Vs Bank of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.09.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.13286 of 2014

R.Mathiyalagan

... Petitioner

-vs-

Bank of India rep.by it's Branch Manager Rajagiri Branch Papanasam Taluk Thanjavur District

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to sanction education loan for the petitioner's daughter, who has joined B.Arch (Bachelor of Architecture & Planning) Degree Course in Prime College of Architecture and Planning at Kilvelur in Nagapattinam District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrasekar

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.T.Govindasamy

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

2. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Bank to sanction education loan for his daughter, who has joined B.Arch (Bachelor of Architecture & Planning) Degree Course in Prime College of Architecture and Planning at Kilvelur in Nagapattinam District.

¶18

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that there is no dispute in considering the application for educational loan to the petitioner's daughter, as they are bound to the updated master circular formulated by Indian Banks' Association and in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ terms of the said circular, the loan for admission under management quota is permissible, however, the same can be considered as per

¶19

¶20

the terms and conditions stipulated in Annexure-I. The relevant portion reads as follows:

¶21

“B) Students who have secured admission under Management Quota are not entitled for loan as per modified norms [as per (A) above] can continue to avail Educational Loan as per existing norms as under:

¶22

i) Cut-off marks in qualifying examination:

¶23

For General category 60% For SC/ST/OBC 50% ii) Min. Margin : 25%

¶24

iii) Quantum of loan: As per fee structure approved by State Government or regulatory body.

¶25

iv) Collateral security : Min. 50% of the loan amount.”

¶26

3. In terms of the above guidelines, in cases, where admission has been secured under management quota, collateral security has to be furnished to the extent of 50% of the loan amount. Further, the learned counsel, on instructions, submitted that as per the credit information secured, the petitioner is capable of giving collateral security. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is cultivating sugarcane in Tanjore District and he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands and the sugarcane field falls within the cutting area of sugar mill.

¶27

4. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to furnish some security as well as by producing the order by the Commissioner and his tenancy rights over the property in question. On production of those documents, the respondent Bank shall take into consideration the petitioner's case and the sale of the crop is being regulated and payments are being effected by the sugar mill, the petitioner case may be considered on those line so that his daughter would be entitled to pursue the said course. The petitioner is directed to approach the respondent Bank with all these documents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and thereafter the respondent Bank shall assess the credit worthiness and the security offered by him and pass orders on merits, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶28

5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

/True copy/

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

To:

¶36

The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Rajagiri Branch, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr. V. Chandrasekar ADVOCATE IN SR : 50289 +1cc to Mr. T. Govindasamy ADVOCATE IN SR : 50480 krk ssb/20.10.2014/3p-4c

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.13286 of 2014

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Mathiyalagan v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mathiyalagan v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Balasubramanian Vs the District Revenue Officer

S.Karthikeyan Vs the Branch Manager

Vellaichamy, Vs the District Revenue Officer

S. Surya Moorthy Vs the Corporation Commissioner

Nizar Mohamed Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Kanagaraj Samuvel Vs the District Registrar