Bank invites HC ire for denying edu loan on flimsy grounds
Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com
Chennai:30.06.2018
Pulling up Indian Bank for rejecting an education loan application of a meritorious student on a flimsy ground that the college he had applied to had not maintained placement records, the Madras high court warned the bank that it would be constrained to impose ₹1 lakh as cost on the officials concerned.
However, after the bank assuredtheHCthathenceforthit would process such applications as per the guidelines set in the IBA Model Educational Loan Scheme, 2015, Justice S Vaidyanathan restrainedfrom imposing any cost.
S Naveen had secured 1,017 marks in higher secondary examination conducted by the state board in 2014-15. He joined Bachelor of siddha medicine and surgery in Sri Sai Ram Siddha Medical College & Research Centre, Chennai.
Naveen managed to source the initial tuition fee from his friends and relatives. For further payments he applied for education loan at the Arni branch of Indian Bank on March 28, 2016, with supporting documents. To his shock and surprise, on October 18, 2016, his loan application was rejected by the bank on the groundthathiscollegewas not maintaining placement records of its outgoing students.
Aggrieved, Naveen approached the HC. He contended if production of placement records is a pre-condition for granting students loan, then it would defeat the purpose of granting education loan. “The reason assigned by the bank cannotbe a groundto rejectthe petitioner’s application. The procedure for grant of loan requires production of necessary documents,whichthe petitioner has produced. The petitioner is a bright student and if education loan is denied to him, his education would be at stake,” Naveen’s counsel said.
Opposing the contentions, the bank submitted that no document has been furnished by the petitioner for sanctioning education loan, much less the admission letter and bona fide student certificate from the college. Hence, the bank was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner.
The judge said, “A reading of the counter would make it clear thateducation loan of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that no subsequent records have been furnished by the college and that cannot be a ground for rejection. If the petitioner is able to produce the documents required by the bank, then loan ought to have been granted to him naturally.”
Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com
Chennai:30.06.2018
Pulling up Indian Bank for rejecting an education loan application of a meritorious student on a flimsy ground that the college he had applied to had not maintained placement records, the Madras high court warned the bank that it would be constrained to impose ₹1 lakh as cost on the officials concerned.
However, after the bank assuredtheHCthathenceforthit would process such applications as per the guidelines set in the IBA Model Educational Loan Scheme, 2015, Justice S Vaidyanathan restrainedfrom imposing any cost.
S Naveen had secured 1,017 marks in higher secondary examination conducted by the state board in 2014-15. He joined Bachelor of siddha medicine and surgery in Sri Sai Ram Siddha Medical College & Research Centre, Chennai.
Naveen managed to source the initial tuition fee from his friends and relatives. For further payments he applied for education loan at the Arni branch of Indian Bank on March 28, 2016, with supporting documents. To his shock and surprise, on October 18, 2016, his loan application was rejected by the bank on the groundthathiscollegewas not maintaining placement records of its outgoing students.
Aggrieved, Naveen approached the HC. He contended if production of placement records is a pre-condition for granting students loan, then it would defeat the purpose of granting education loan. “The reason assigned by the bank cannotbe a groundto rejectthe petitioner’s application. The procedure for grant of loan requires production of necessary documents,whichthe petitioner has produced. The petitioner is a bright student and if education loan is denied to him, his education would be at stake,” Naveen’s counsel said.
Opposing the contentions, the bank submitted that no document has been furnished by the petitioner for sanctioning education loan, much less the admission letter and bona fide student certificate from the college. Hence, the bank was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner.
The judge said, “A reading of the counter would make it clear thateducation loan of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that no subsequent records have been furnished by the college and that cannot be a ground for rejection. If the petitioner is able to produce the documents required by the bank, then loan ought to have been granted to him naturally.”
No comments:
Post a Comment