Branch Manager, Central Bank of India vs KALINATH BANERJEE

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 10.9.1998 asking the Central Bank of India, Balurghat Branch, to provide permissible loan under a particular scheme approved and forwarded by the D.I.C., West Bengal at Raiganj to the complainant together with cost of Rs. 1,000/- for its alleged failure to provide the said loan.

THE complainant being an unemployed youth approached the Bank for a loan of Rs. 30,000/- for running his business. All the necessary documents in support of his loan were also furnished. THE case of the complainant was recommended by the D.I.C. but the Bank did not grant any loan to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant approached the Forum who by its order directed the Bank to co-operate with the complainant in rendering financial aid sought for. It is alleged that the said co-operation was not extended by the Bank and no loan was granted to the complainant. Consequently, the complainant again approached the Forum for a direction upon the Bank to sanction loan to him. It appears that the appellant did not contest the case by filing written objection. According to the appellant, the case could not be contested because the Lawyer engaged for the purpose met with an accident. Anyway, the Forum proceeded to determine the dispute ex-parte and directed the Bank to provide permissible loan under a particular scheme. THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it is within the discretion of the Bank Authority to decide whether a loan is to be granted to a particular person or not. He submits further that the viability of the business as well as repayment capacity of the loanee is required to be considered before loan is sanctioned. It may be true that the scheme was approved by the D.I.C., West Dinajpore. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the loan could not be sanctioned because the proposed business was not found to be viable. THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Forum acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing it to sanction loan to a particular person. According to him, the Bank has to consider viability of the proposal as well as the repayment capacity of the borrower before sanctioning loan. We find substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and find that the Forum was not justified in decreeing the claim. In our view, it ought to have dismissed the complaint petition. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal on contest and dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.