IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.9479 OF 2010 Chandeshwar Prasad Singh son of Late Ramashray Singh, resident of Pakari, in front of Old Post Office, Police Station Ara, Nawada, District- Bhojpur. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman State Bank of India, Central Office, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai, 400021, Maharasthra. 3. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800 001. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Station Road, Ara, District Bhojpur. 5. Sri Shekhar Kumar Thakur son of Sri Baleshwar Thakur, Resident of village Kabir Chak, Police-Station Donalchak District Darbhanga. At present Posted as Personal Banking Manager, S.B.I. Station Road, Ara, Branch, District-Bhojpur. …. Respondents. _______ For the petitioner : Mr.Hari Shankar Roy, Advocate. For the respondents-Bank : M/s. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha & Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. N. HUSSAIN ------ O R D E R 06/ 25.08.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondents to realise the interest on the loan advanced in favour of petitioner’s son under Education Loan Scheme as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India in this respect, i.e. at the rate of simple interest and not at the rate of compound interest. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondents to return the title deeds of the petitioner which were got deposited in security of the advanced education loan in favour of petitioner’s son - 2 - against the Scheme advancing education loan. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to respondents to accept deposits of Rs.4000/- per month against the advanced education loan in favour of petitioner’s son till its repayment and not to force the petitioner and his son to deposit more amount than Rs.4000/- per month as fixed on the agreement of the parties. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to take administrative action against the respondent no.5 who is acting in arbitrary manner against the interest of bank in question as well as against the interest of petitioner and his son who are the loanee of the bank by withdrawing the money from the saving account of petitioner and depositing the same in the loan account of petitioner’s son as per his own sweet will and without taking consent and without giving information to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that petitioner’s son took education loan from State Bank of India, Station Road, Ara, Bhojpur and for that purpose title deed of the property of petitioner’s wife was given to the Bank. The said education loan of Rs.1,98,596.00 was advanced during the period from 2003-2006 and interest was paid to the Bank during the said period. It was also stated that petitioner’s son passed his B.Tech examination in June 2006 and got employment in HCL in September, 2007 and thereafter he started repayment of loan by instalments depositing Rs.4,000.00 per month. It is also alleged that Personnel Banking Manager, State Bank of India, Station Road, Ara Branch in an arbitrary manner withdrew Rs.5,500.00 from the saving account of the petitioner and deposited the same in the loan account of petitioner’s son and when the petitioner went to - 3 - enquire for the same he misbehaved with him, whereafter the premium for realisation of loan was enhanced from Rs.4,000.00 to Rs.4,868.00 per month and the interest was calculated at compound rate. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been filing representations before the authorities for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law, but they are not paying any heed to the same. 3. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that education loan was taken by the petitioner and his son and the application dated 28.11.2003 (Annexure-A) for the loan was signed by both of them and the proposal for sanction of the said term loan was recommended by the recommending panel on 12.12.2003 (Annexure-B) and, accordingly, the loan was sanctioned and arrangement letter dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure-C) was issued by the State Bank of India which was received by the petitioner and his son, both accepting the terms and conditions thereof including terms and condition no.4 for repayment of loan in equal monthly instalments in 84 months from commencement of repayment and the repayment will commence one year after completion of the course or after six months of getting a job whichever is earlier. 4. It was also the term of loan that the amount of equated monthly instalments and number of E.M.I. may change depending upon the change in rate of interest at the sole - 4 - discretion of the Bank. The rate of interest was also subject to revision from time to time as well as penal interest due to default which were detailed in the terms and condition no.3 thereof. It further transpires that an agreement for the said term loan under S.B.I Education Loan Scheme was executed on 12.12.2003 (Annexure-D) by the petitioner and his son as well as the authorities of the Bank in which the same clause nos. 3 and 4 were reiterated. 5. It is an admitted fact that the son of the petitioner completed his course in June, 2006 and got his job in the HCL in September, 2007, but started repayment of loan at the rate of Rs.4,000.00 per month from March, 2008. The terms and conditions of the arrangement as well as the agreement between the parties required the petitioner and/or his son to start repayment of loan at the said rate immediately after completion of one year of his course or after six months of getting a job whichever is earlier. Hence, the son of the petitioner having completed his course in June, 2006 should have started repayment of loan from June, 2007, but he did not. Due to the said delay the amount of premium to be paid by the petitioner or his son escalated as the entire amount of the term loan had to be repaid to the Bank by the petitioner or his son within 84 months from June, 2007, namely one year after the completion of the course by the son of the petitioner. Similarly, the interest was to be calculated as per the terms of the agreement. This aspect of the matter is clearly apparent from the Bank - 5 - Statement (Annexure-E) which shows an outstanding of Rs.1,74,451.00 on 09.09.2010. 6. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the respondent-Bank acted as per the agreement and calculated the amount of premium and interest in accordance with law. All this had to be done due to late start in the payment of premium by the petitioner and his son and for that the authorities of the respondent- Bank cannot be legally held to be at fault. Hence, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)