C.GENGARI vs Canara Bank

THIS action came up before us for admission today. The complainant is one C. Gengari. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant namely, M/s. A. Immanuel and G. Helina Prathiba were called absent and no representation is made on their behalf. The complainant is also called absent and no representation is made on his behalf.

WE perused the averments in the complaint and other connected documents filed alongwith it. The sum and substance of the complaint is to the effect that the opposite parties Canara Bank officials did not sanction a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards purchasing machinery for the flour and rice mill he was installing, despite the fact he cleared of all the existing loans due by him to the opposite parties.

The non-sanction of loan by the opposite parties to the complainant cannot at all be construed as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in the eye of law. It is legally open to the banking company concerned to take a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bona fide discretion as to whether it is safe to make advances of public funds to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining relevant facts and circumstances. It cannot be said that when after consideration of relevant factors the Bank in its discretion decides not to grant loan there has been deficiency in service on their part. It is in this view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

THE complaint as such deserves to be rejected in limine. In fine, we reject the complaint in limini. Complaint rejected in limine.