AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NOBODY is present on behalf of the complainant. Since this is an old case, it cannot be adjourned further.
HOWEVER, we have considered the matter. The substance of the allegations of the complainant is that the complainant has not been provided loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- and he has incurred lot of expenditure for receiving such loan and also he has suffered mental tension, harassment etc. for non grant of such loan. The allegations of the complainant by and large have been denied by the respondents. No evidence has been filed by the complainant in support of the complaint.
The question whether the banks have discretion in the matter of sanctioning loan etc., has been discussed by the National Commission in its various decisions and some of them may be referred to hereunder.
IN M/s. Bunny''s Gift and Novelty Centre v. Punjab and Sind Bank, III (1993) CPJ 322 (NC), the National Commission has held that : "IN a catena of cases we have held that the banks have considerable discretion in the matter of sanctioning of loans and granting cash credit facilities. They are only bound to follow the guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of INdia. The final decision whether or not to lend or advance any funds to any party rests with the Bank concerned...."
Similar view has been taken by the National Commission in Vimal Chandra Grover v. Bank of India, II (1996) CPJ 159 (NC), whereby it has been held that : "....complaints by borrowers from Bank against failure to provide adequate facilities to an industry or. business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of further advances and insisting on margin money etc. the Banks have to exercise their discretion and act in accordance with their best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors and hence mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot be said to constitute deficiency of service as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act."
THE above decisions can apply with equal force to the respondents i.e. M/s. United Commercial Corporation, Bombay. THEre is no force in this complaint and is accordingly dismissed. THEre is no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.