Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 892 (CAL)

Goutam De v. UCO Bank

2015-10-15

ARIJIT BANERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. The Government of India in the budget of 2009-10 had introduced the Central Scheme for Interest Subsidy (in short CSIS Scheme) on educational loan to provide interest subsidy on all educational loans sanctioned/availed up to 31st March, 2009 and outstanding as on 31st December, 2013 by students belong to economically weaker section. The Scheme was applicable for Post Class XII studies in recognized technical/professional courses in India. Students with an annual gross parental/family income up to Rs. 4.5 lac per year as on the date of availing the loan would be deemed to belong to the economically weaker section. It would apply to all education loans sanctioned up to 31st March, 2009 and outstanding as on 31st December, 2013. Only the interest component of the loan would be adjusted under the Scheme. 2. The petitioner applied for the UCO education loan for undergoing the MBA course. Such loan was sanctioned by the respondent bank in May 2007. The total sum disbursed to the petitioner under the loan between 18th May, 2007 and 8th October, 2008 was, according to the petitioner, Rs. 2,66,400/-. According to the petitioner he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,51,233/- towards interest in the loan account between 28th May, 2007 and 10th January, 2014. 3. From the statement of account for the period 1st April, 2014 to 19th September, 2014 it appeared that prior to 30th August, 2014 there was a debit balance of Rs. 6179/- in the loan account. On 30th August, 2014 a subsidy amount of Rs. 75,128/- was credited to the said loan account whereupon the account showed a credit balance of Rs. 68,949/-. According to the petitioner he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6179/ - in the said loan account as a precondition for issuance of 'no dues certificate' by the respondent bank. This the petitioner did on 10th November, 2014 whereupon the loan account showed a credit balance of Rs. 75,132/-. The respondent bank issued the no due certificate on 10th November, 2014. 4. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to refund of this credit balance amount lying in the said account. The petitioner sent several emails dated 17th October, 2014, 19th October, 2014 and 10th November, 2014 to the respondent bank for releasing the said amount in favour of the petitioner. 5. 4. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to refund of this credit balance amount lying in the said account. The petitioner sent several emails dated 17th October, 2014, 19th October, 2014 and 10th November, 2014 to the respondent bank for releasing the said amount in favour of the petitioner. 5. By a letter dated 25th February, 2015 the Chief Manager of the respondent bank informed the petitioner that he was not eligible to receive subsidy. 6. The petitioner contends that from the statement of accounts issued by the respondent bank it would be clear that the Central Government deposited a sum of Rs. 75,128/- in the petitioner's loan account under the CSIS Scheme on account of interest subsidy and the petitioner is entitled to receive the said sum. He contends that the whole object of the CSIS Scheme was to subsidize the interest component of the educational loans availed by students from economically weaker sections going for post higher secondary level students in recognized institutions. He contends that he has deposited more than Rs. 1.5 lacs towards interest in the loan 'account and, hence, the subsidy amount which has been deposited in the loan account under the CSIS Scheme is to be paid to him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ application for a direction on the respondent bank to act in accordance with the CSIS Scheme and release the credit balance in the loan account in favour of the petitioner. 7. Appearing for the respondents, Ld. Counsel contended that there is no scope for return or refund of subsidy amount under the CSIS Scheme. The statement of account pertaining to the loan showed that there was outstanding dues payable by the petitioner to the respondent bank and, hence, the interest component being Rs.75,128/- as subsidy amount was credited in the loan account of the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the bank it is stated as fol1ows: "14. The statement of account pertaining to the loan showed that there was outstanding dues payable by the petitioner to the respondent bank and, hence, the interest component being Rs.75,128/- as subsidy amount was credited in the loan account of the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the bank it is stated as fol1ows: "14. It is submitted that in terms of the scheme petitioner is considered to be eligible for subsidy of interest component in terms of aforesaid bank circular and accordingly the interest component far the relevant period has been duly adjusted by given credit thereof The writ petitioner has mistaken the benefit of adjustment jar refund of subsidy which is not at all warranted by the scheme and circular in any manner.” 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. I am afraid I am unable to agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. If such contention is to be accepted, a defaulting borrower would be better off than a borrower who has serviced the loan regularly and has made deposits in the loan account on account of interest. As noted above, just prior to 30th August, 2014 the petitioner's loan account reflected a debit balance of Rs. 6179/- only. This was obviously because the petitioner had been regularly paying interest on the loan which was getting credited to the loan account. Had the petitioner not paid such interests, and had he waited for payment of the subsidy amount towards interest, the debit balance in the loan account would have been much more. On the date when the subsidy amount was credited to the petitioner's loan account, only a paltry debit balance was there in the said account and after adjustment with the subsidy amount, the account reflected a credit balance of Rs 68,949/-. The petitioner thus paid the interest in anticipation of receiving the subsidy and once the subsidy has been credited to the loan account, the petitioner is entitled to appropriate the same. 9. Admittedly, no monies are due or payable by the petitioner to the bank in connection with the education loan. As on 10th November, 2014 there was a credit balance of Rs.75,182/- in the said loan account. 9. Admittedly, no monies are due or payable by the petitioner to the bank in connection with the education loan. As on 10th November, 2014 there was a credit balance of Rs.75,182/- in the said loan account. If this amount is not paid to the petitioner, he would be deprived of the benefit under the CSIS scheme which deprivation would be wrongful and unlawful since the petitioner is admittedly eligible to receive the benefit under the CSIS Scheme. 10. Had the debit balance in the petitioner's loan account been more than the subsidy as on the date of the crediting of the said account with the amount of subsidy, then even after adjusting the amount of subsidy, the petitioner's account would have shown negative balance and in that case no question of any refund to the petitioner would have arisen. However, by reason of the petitioner regularly servicing the loan, the debit balance was much less than the subsidy amount and after adjustment of the subsidy amount, the petitioner's account showed a healthy positive balance of Rs. 68,953/-. Subsequently the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 6179/- which took the credit balance to Rs. 75,182/- and in my opinion this entire sum is payable by the respondent bank to the petitioner. The debit balance of Rs. 6179/- was adjusted by the bank against the subsidy amount and hence a further payment of the same amount was, in my view, unnecessary. The said amount of Rs. 6179/- is repayable by the bank to the petitioner. The sum of Rs. 68,953/- (subsidy amount of Rs. 75,128 -6179) is also payable to the petitioner by way of reimbursement. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this application succeeds. The respondent bank is directed to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 75,132/- along with interest at the rate at which the bank pays interests on Fixed Deposits for the period 11th November, 2014 till date of payment. Such payment is to be made within a period of three weeks from date. 12. WP No. 314 of2014 is accordingly disposed of.