Disposed

N. Ukkirapandiyan v. the General Manager

Madras HC24 Feb 2016WP(MD)/2159/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought educational loan for his daughter. The court directed the Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India respondents to consider the petitioner's written representation for the loan strictly in accordance with RBI rules and to pass orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2015 for educational loan in accordance with RBI rules and pass orders within eight weeks.

N. Ukkirapandiyan Vs the General Manager — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.02.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2159 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1876 of 2016

N.Ukkirapandiyan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Regional Manager, Regional Office, State Bank of India, Rasmecccc, Malur Road, Near Rajamuthiah Mantam, Near District Court, Madurai.

¶12

3.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, M.Kallupatti Branch, M.Kallupatti Post, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: The Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3^rd and 2^nd to grant educational loan to the petitioner's daughter by name U.Gowsalya doing B.E.Computer Science Engineering Course in the Engineering College by name Muthayammal Engineering College, Rasipuram, Namakkal District by considering the petitioner written representation dated 24.08.2015.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh For Respondents : Mr.Pala Ramasamy

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent / Bank submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 will consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with R.B.I. regulations.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Recording the statement made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent / Bank, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2015 for

¶18

¶19

availing educational loan strictly in accordance with R.B.I. rules and regulations and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (W)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
2.The Regional Manager,
Regional Office,
State Bank of India,
Rasmecccc, Malur Road,
Near Rajamuthiah Mantam,
Near District Court, Madurai.
3.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, M.Kallupatti Branch, M.Kallupatti Post,
Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai.
+ 1 CC TO MR.PALA.RAMASAMY, ADVOCATE IN SR NO.10472 + 1 CC TO MR.K.SATHIYA SINGH, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 10569
NBJ
TE/SK-SKN/ : 03/03/2016 : 2P/6C
W.P.(MD)No.2159 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1876 of 2016 24.02.2016

¶26

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

N. Ukkirapandiyan v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Ukkirapandiyan v. the General Manager

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

A.Padmanabhan, Vs the Senior Manager

Mrs. Rengamani Vs the District Collector

K.Jhon Peter, Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Mariappan, S/O.S.Nainar Vs the Superintending Engineer

R.Kannan, Vs the Branch Manager

M/S. M.A.K. Construction Vs the Commissioner