Allowed

B.Ganesh Prabhu v. United Bank of India

Madras HC5 Oct 2015WP/21695/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a student allotted a government quota seat, approached this court seeking a relief against the respondents who denied an educational loan solely because his institution was not on the Indian Banks Association approved list. The court held that non-identification by the Association cannot deny the loan if other parameters are met.

What did the court decide?

Relief to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and take appropriate steps within six weeks.

B.Ganesh Prabhu Vs United Bank of India — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.21695 of 2015

¶6

B.Ganesh Prabhu ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

United Bank of India, rep by its Deputy General Manager & CRM, Southern Regional Office, 184/192 Ramakrishna Math Road, Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028. 2. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Subramaniyar Swamy Koil Street, T.S.Puram, Vallipalayam, Tirupur – 641 601. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.05.2015 and sanction educational loan to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Kandhan Duraisami For Respondents : Mr.Benjamin George

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner, belonging to Most Backward Community, hailing from a poor agricultural family, sought for loan from the respondents to pursue studies in Jay Shriram Group of Institutions, Avinashipalayam, Tirupur. He was allotted a seat by the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2014 under the Government quota in B.E. (Civil Engineering) course. The request made by the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the institution is not in the approved list communicated by the Indian Banks Association.

¶13

2.What is relevant is the entitlement of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has been given admission under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government quota. The institution is also a recognised one. Merely,

¶14

because it has not been identified by the Indian Banks Association, the same cannot be a factor to deny the educational loan, provided, the petitioner satisfies all other parameters. The object of the loan is to help a student, who is in financial need.

¶15

2.The Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and take appropriate steps within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the respondent no.2 by providing all the required particulars. No costs.

¶16

-Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Deputy General Manager & CRM,
United Bank of India,
Southern Regional Office,
184/192 Ramakrishna Math Road,
Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028.
2. The Branch Manager,
United Bank of India,
Subramaniyar Swamy Koil Street,
T.S.Puram, Vallipalayam,
Tirupur – 641 601.
+1 cc to Mr.Muthumani duraisami,Advocate(sr.53772)
+1 cc to Mr.Benjamin George,Advocate(sr.53841)

¶17

W.P.No.21695 of 2015
pur(co)
cp 07/10/2015

¶18

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

B.Ganesh Prabhu v. United Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ganesh Prabhu v. United 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

Punjab National Bank Vs The Secretary to Government

Y.Jayanthi Bhaskar Vs The Directorate of Legal

Mrs.Khin Mya Win Vs The Union of India

M/S.S.Arumairaj a Partnership Vs the Superintending Engineer

M.Narayanasamy, Vs the Director

P.Barnabas Prem Vs the Tahsildar