R. Vasanthakumar V. State Bank of Travancore, Regional Office, Coimbatore and State Bank of Travancore, Periyakulam, Theni District

WP(MD)/3749/2013

AI Insights

R. Vasanthakumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the State Bank of Travancore, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the bank to sanction a mortgage loan. The petitioner argued that the loan was necessary to fund medical treatments for his son suffering from autism. The bank, however, rejected the application based on their eligibility criteria, which the petitioner did not meet. The court examined the petitioner's circumstances, including his employment and the property ownership, and found that the bank's refusal was justified based on their established criteria and RBI regulations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692169 (HC-MADURAI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S RENGASAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: R RAMASAMY
• Keywords: Eligibility criteria; Mortgage loan; RBI Circular; Writ of Mandamus; Family Property

Judgement Text

"1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.10.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.3749 of 2013 R.Vasanthakumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Regional Office, 260, V.V.Complex, Near Siddhapudur, Coimbatore. 2) The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to sanction the mortgage loan to the petitioner as per the application form submitted in June 2012 and within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Rengasamy O R D E R The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/R.Vasanthakumar, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Coimbatore, and the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Periyakulam, Theni District, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, to sanction the mortgage loan to the petitioner as per the application form submitted in the month of June 2012. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having served as a Lecturer in Matha College of Nursing, Manamadurai, from 2006 onwards, with the monthly income of Rs.8,750/-, has come down and working as a Lecturer in Sree Santhosh Nursing College, Madhuranthagam, from July 2012 with the drawing salary of Rs.11,500/- per month. It is also stated that the petitioner is a native of Periyakulam, owning agricultural land and married to one Parasakthy, who has completed M.Sc degree from Matha College of Nursing, Manamadurai, but due to the wedlock, when she gave birth to a male child by name, Yuvan Aditya, the child was suffering from a disease called 'autism' that affects both speech and hearing ability, for which, even though the petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 giving treatment to bring the child for normalcy, the medical experts have given an opinion that his child will take five long years for complete cure. When the petitioner has taken his child for treatment to various hospitals, namely, Nimhams, Bangalore, and Sree Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai, after finding that the said Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai, is a suitable place for the welfare of the child, the petitioner has shifted his family and his job nearer to Chennai and his wife, who was also employed in Matha College of Nursing, resigned her job to take care of the child. Now the daily speech therapy, Occupational therapy, Special Education and Sensory stimulation treatment are necessary for the child for which it has been estimated that five lakhs rupees are needed for giving treatment. Therefore, when the petitioner approached the respondent bank and got application form for getting mortgage loan, he was advised to submit his application form along with the legal opinion to the 2nd respondent for the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, accordingly, the petitioner also submitted all his original documents along with necessary papers on 01.06.2012, but the respondents are not coming forward to grant the said loan. In fact, the mortgage property of the petitioner is worth more than 14 lakhs as it is having 1500 sq.ft house in Periyakulam Town. His application dated 13.09.2012 submitted to the 1st respondent was considered by the 2nd respondent by sending a reply on 17.09.2012 informing the petitioner that they would communicate the position of the loan, but till now, there is no reply from the 2nd respondent. In view of the delay in considering the petitioner's request for loan, when the petitioner made a representation to the Banking Ombudsman at Chennai on 25.09.2012, the 2nd respondent refused to sanction the loan on 23.11.2012 with some afterthought. However, the 2nd respondent again sent a letter to the petitioner to collect the original papers. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received a letter from the Banking Ombudsman stating that his application is in progress in the respondent bank, however, they rejected the petitioner's application. In view of the delay in sanctioning the loan, the petitioner has been struggling to cure the disease of his son at one side and on the other hand, the petitioner and his wife are not able to mobilise the fund to meet out the medical expenses even though the petitioner sold his wife's jewels. Moreover, the petitioner is not able to run his family peacefully, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suitable direction should be given to the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's application for grant of loan to treat the disease of the petitioner's son. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the mortgage loan sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered, since the property is not the individual property of the petitioner and the same is a family property. As per the R.B.I Circular, if any one in the family is having share in the property, then the property will not be considered for mortgage loan. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the applicant shall satisfy the following eligibility criteria for availing mortgatge loan:- a.He should be an existing customer of the bank with satisfactory track record of more than one year; b.He should be the employee of Government, Quasi Government/reputed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 companies/Establishments. c.He should be a professional, self employed and others who are income tax assesses. d.He should be engaged in Agricultural activity and allied activities. e.His net monthly income should be of Rs.1,80,000/- in other cases. f.Margin of the property is 40% of the market value of the property. g.Repayment should be EMI maximum of 120 months h.Other requirements are last 3 years Income tax return and TDS certificate Form 16 in the case of salaried persons. 5. Since the petitioner did not fulfil any of the conditions and he is also not a permanent employee, he pleaded, the petitioner is not eligible to get mortgage loan. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per the statement of the petitioner, sometime back he was working in Manamadurai and now he is working near Chennai. Since the petitioner is shifting his job as he likes, he is again ineligible. It is also stated that his wife is unemployed person and therefore, he is ineligible. Moreover, the RBI circular states that no bank shall advance loan to any person who is working in Chennai from Periakulam. As the respondent cannot violate the RBI rules, the petitioner cannot press his application for mortgage loan. 6. Finally, it was argued that in spite of the above criteria, if loan is granted to the petitioner and the petitioner commits default, it is not easy for the bank to contact the borrower to make him pay the installments, since he is working in Chennai. Besides, it is stated that the income tax return submitted by the borrower is of the same date for two years. In view of the above reasons, the loan sought for by the petitioner from the respondent bank being public money cannot be advanced. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner submitted an application on 01.06.2012, for grant of mortgage loan for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by submitting necessary documents. It could be seen that the property in question is having 1500 sq.ft house situated in Periakulam Town, Theni District. It is also an admitted fact that the said property belongs to his father and now his brother and mother are also having share in the said property. The petitioner has also submitted income tax return for two years and also claimed to have submitted other papers as requested by the 2nd respondent in his letter dated 05.12.2012. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner wanted mortgage loan from the 2nd respondent bank on the house property which is admittedly belonging to his father. When the petitioner wants to receive mortgage loan, it is necessary as per the bank rule to mortgage his property, but the record shows that the property does not belong to him whereas it belongs to his family, his brother and mother are also having share. Secondly, he claims that he is working in Chennai but in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, although the petitioner has mentioned the name of the establishment as Sree Santhosh Nursing College, Madhuranthagam, in which he is presently working, no relevant document showing his placement and the pay slip showing his monthly income has been produced. When the eligibility criteria specifically https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 mentions that the petitioner/applicant who seeks mortgage loan from the respondent bank, should be an employee of any reputed company or establishment, if not a Government employee, the documents filed in the additional typed set of papers do not contain any proof to accept his case that he is a permanent employee. Under these circumstances, when the respondent bank has refused to grant mortgage loan, this Court is not in a position to issue any direction against the respondent bank. 9. In view of the peculiar problem faced by the petitioner that his son is suffering from the disease called 'autism', for which a substantial financial assistance is required, when this Court also inclined to issue a direction to the respondent bank, to consider the grant of loan, sadly, no good ground has been made out in favour of the petitioner. 10. As I highlighted above, the petitioner has not enclosed the relevant document to inspire confidence that he is a man of solvent to repay the mortgage loan back to the respondent bank. Moreover, he has not produced No Objection Certificate from his brother and mother for mortgaging the property in order to borrow loan. Therefore, this Court is unable to grant the prayer, accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) True copy Sub Assistant Registrar To 1) The Assistant General Manager,State Bank of Travancore, Regional Office,260, V.V.Complex, Near Siddhapudur,Coimbatore. 2) The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore,Periyakulam, Theni District. +1 CC to M/s.R.Ramasamy, Advocate Sr.No.51677 W.P(MD)No.3749 of 2013 23.10.2013 nb2 NA/24/10/2013/P4/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "