HC flays SBI for blocking customer account

July 23, 2013 11:50 am | Updated 11:50 am IST - MADURAI:

The Madras High Court bench here has flayed the State Bank of India for overstepping its limit in recovering an educational loan provided to a retired commercial tax department employee’s daughter.

U. Ramu, a retired commercial department employee from Iyer Bungalow here, had moved the court alleging that the State Bank of India (SBI) had blocked his account, restraining the withdrawal of his monthly pension from the account, after he failed to repay the educational loan obtained for his daughter.

According to Mr Ramu’s counsel P. Subbiah, the petitioner received a monthly pension of Rs 13,000. Mr Ramu had obtained a loan of Rs 1.43 lakh for his daughter’s education from the SBI, Tallakulam branch, in 2002 by providing as collateral the original title deeds of three house plots, he added.

The counsel contended that the petitioner’s daughter did not get a job after the completion of her studies and got married.

Subsequently, Mr Ramu did not repay the loan, he added.

The bank issued a demand notice on December 18, 2009 asking the petitioner to repay Rs 1.90 lakh. The chairman of the Stressed Assets Resolution Centre filed a mortgage suit at the Second Additional Subordinate Court here to recover the loan from the petitioner and the case is pending, Mr Subbiah further said.

The bank authorities blocked the petitioner’s account from March 2013 because of which he is unable to withdraw money, the counsel alleged.

Mr Subbiah contended that the petitioner’s only source of income was his monthly pension.

"The bank had blocked the petitioner’s account with a malafide intention to force him to settle the educational loan. The bank had already withdrawn Rs 71,000 from the petitioner’s account", the counsel claimed.

"The petitioner has deposited the title deeds with the bank as security for the educational loan obtained. The bank should not have blocked the petitioner’s account", Justice S. Rajeswaran observed in his order.

While the bank was taking legal steps to recover the loan, the act of withholding the petitioner’s pension amount was not justifiable, the judge further noted.

"It is also stated by the petitioner that except the pension amount, he has no other source of income. In this case, the bank, in my opinion, has over-stepped its limits in interfering with the withdrawal of the pension amount of the petitioner", the judge ruled.

In his judgement, Justice Rajeswaran issued a direction forbearing the bank from blocking Mr Ramu’s account.

He further instructed the bank to refund Rs 71,000 drawn from Mr Ramu’s account without his consent in three weeks.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.