Court makes 2 bank managers pay for not responding to notice
K.T.Sangameswaran Share · print · T+
Money from personal funds to go to Chief Justice Relief Fund
Criticising a nationalised bank for not responding to court notice in
a matter relating to educational loan, the Madras High Court imposed
costs of Rs.2,500 each on two managers, to be paid from their personal
funds, to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a week.
The bank being an instrumentality of the State defined under Article
12 of the Constitution, should be a model to the general public by
responding to the court notice. Ignoring court notice by the
respondents would definitely send wrong signals to the general public,
which was not good for justice delivery system and, consequently, to
the general public. “This court cannot be a silent spectator approving
the conduct of the respondents,” observed Justice N.Kirubakaran in his
order.
Subramanian filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the branch
manager, Indian Overseas Bank at Manalmedu in Nagapattinam district,
to consider his representation of December 6 last year and sanction
educational loan within a stipulated time.
He stated that he had enrolled for M.Sc (Bio-Chemistry) on the
Kumbakonam campus of SASTRA university for 2010-11. The total fee for
the two years was Rs.42,750.
He approached the bank with the certificates in November last year. He
also sent a representation the next month. Till date, it had not been
disposed of. Hence the petition.
The notice was served on the respondents, the branch manager and the
manager (educational loan section), zonal office, Indian Overseas
Bank, Nagapattinam, on November 11 this year. Before that the
petitioner's counsel sent a private notice which was received by the
bank officials. The respondents neither appeared in person nor through
advocate.
Mr. Justice Kirubakaran said that the court could deem that there was
no defence available to the bank or could deem that the allegations in
the affidavit were admitted.
Deciding the matter on merits, the Judge said that Mr. Subramanian's
loan application should have been disposed of by the bank promptly.
Any delay, especially with regard to educational loan, would force the
parents of poor students to borrow money on heavy interest from other
sources. If the loan could not be granted, it should be intimated to
the party concerned in writing.
Considering the petitioner's merit to get the loan, the Judge directed
the bank to dispose of the petitioner's application of November last
year, within one week.
Mr. Justice Kirubakaran observed that nowadays in various matters,
nationalised banks and public sector insurance companies did not
appear before the court after receiving notices. After noticing
non-appearance by the banks, the court had to search for the panel
counsel and ask the petitioner's counsel to serve notice on him.
Though the exercise was unnecessary, it was an attempt to see that the
matter was heard and disposed of in the presence of the bank on
merits.
--
CA Ramachandran Mahadevan,M.Com.,F.C.A.,
K.T.Sangameswaran Share · print · T+
Money from personal funds to go to Chief Justice Relief Fund
Criticising a nationalised bank for not responding to court notice in
a matter relating to educational loan, the Madras High Court imposed
costs of Rs.2,500 each on two managers, to be paid from their personal
funds, to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a week.
The bank being an instrumentality of the State defined under Article
12 of the Constitution, should be a model to the general public by
responding to the court notice. Ignoring court notice by the
respondents would definitely send wrong signals to the general public,
which was not good for justice delivery system and, consequently, to
the general public. “This court cannot be a silent spectator approving
the conduct of the respondents,” observed Justice N.Kirubakaran in his
order.
Subramanian filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the branch
manager, Indian Overseas Bank at Manalmedu in Nagapattinam district,
to consider his representation of December 6 last year and sanction
educational loan within a stipulated time.
He stated that he had enrolled for M.Sc (Bio-Chemistry) on the
Kumbakonam campus of SASTRA university for 2010-11. The total fee for
the two years was Rs.42,750.
He approached the bank with the certificates in November last year. He
also sent a representation the next month. Till date, it had not been
disposed of. Hence the petition.
The notice was served on the respondents, the branch manager and the
manager (educational loan section), zonal office, Indian Overseas
Bank, Nagapattinam, on November 11 this year. Before that the
petitioner's counsel sent a private notice which was received by the
bank officials. The respondents neither appeared in person nor through
advocate.
Mr. Justice Kirubakaran said that the court could deem that there was
no defence available to the bank or could deem that the allegations in
the affidavit were admitted.
Deciding the matter on merits, the Judge said that Mr. Subramanian's
loan application should have been disposed of by the bank promptly.
Any delay, especially with regard to educational loan, would force the
parents of poor students to borrow money on heavy interest from other
sources. If the loan could not be granted, it should be intimated to
the party concerned in writing.
Considering the petitioner's merit to get the loan, the Judge directed
the bank to dispose of the petitioner's application of November last
year, within one week.
Mr. Justice Kirubakaran observed that nowadays in various matters,
nationalised banks and public sector insurance companies did not
appear before the court after receiving notices. After noticing
non-appearance by the banks, the court had to search for the panel
counsel and ask the petitioner's counsel to serve notice on him.
Though the exercise was unnecessary, it was an attempt to see that the
matter was heard and disposed of in the presence of the bank on
merits.
--
CA Ramachandran Mahadevan,M.Com.,F.C.A.,
No comments:
Post a Comment