Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
VIJAY - Appellant
Vs.
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. No. 7844 of 2014
Decided On : 01-05-2017
Subsidy - Gramin Bhandaran Yojna - Clause XXII, Pattern of Assistance - The court determined the entitlement of the petitioner for the subsidy to the extent of 15% and held that the interest on the said amount would not be leviable on him from the date he completed all the formalities for subsidy. The court also directed the bank to issue a statement of loan account adjusting the interest taken on the amount of subsidy from the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order and seek direction for sanctioning a subsidy under the 'Gramin Bhandaran Yojna'. The petitioner contended that the subsidy was wrongly sanctioned at 15% instead of 25% and that interest on the subsidy should not be charged. The respondents argued that the subsidy was sanctioned as per the guidelines and that the petitioner was liable to pay interest on the subsidy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to claim a 25% subsidy as a 'Farmer' and that the NABARD's decision to grant a 15% subsidy was justifiable. The court also held that the petitioner should not be liable to pay interest on the subsidy from the date he completed all the formalities for subsidy.
Issues: 1. Entitlement to claim subsidy at 25% as a 'Farmer' 2. Liability to pay interest on the subsidy 3. Entitlement to get adjustment of interest paid on the subsidy 4. Date from which the benefit of interest on the subsidy would be available
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner was not entitled to claim a 25% subsidy as a 'Farmer' and that the NABARD's decision to grant a 15% subsidy was justifiable. The court also held that the petitioner should not be liable to pay interest on the subsidy from the date he completed all the formalities for subsidy.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded in part, and the court issued directions regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for the subsidy, the relaxation of interest on the subsidy, and the adjustment of interest paid on the subsidy.
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order Annexure P/1 dated 22-7-2014 and to seek direction for sanctioning the subsidy @ 25% of the capital cost of the project under the "Gramin Bhandaran Yojna"; it is prayed the respondents No. 1 and 2 may be restrained from recovery of the amount of term loan to the extent of amount of subsidy admissible to the petitioner and also restrain them from charging interest to the extent of eligibility of subsidy. The direction has also been sought to adjust the amount of the interest already recovered by the Bank without adjustment of subsidy/advance subsidy against term loan amount.
2. The facts in brief are that the "Gramin Bhandaran Yojna" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Yojna') has been floated by the Central Government whereby the residents of India may get loan for construction of the godown (warehouse) in the rural area, on subsidy as specified therein, and it would be sanctioned as per the scheme of NABARD. Petitioner submitted a project for construction of a godown on the land situated in Tehsil Bagali, District Dewas to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Indore (now merged in the State Bank of India), Hatpipliya, District Indore. The total cost of the project was Rs. 56.54 lakhs out of which the petitioner deposited his own capital investment 16.72 lakhs and the term loan was worked out at Rs. 39.82 lakhs, which includes the eligible capital investment subsidy at Rs. 14.30 lakhs @ 25% of the total cost of project. The term loan was sanctioned on 28-3-2008. The first instalment was released on 31-3-2008, as reveal from the acknowledgement Annexure P/3 dated 1-4-2008.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is regularly paying the bank instalments and as per the scheme the project has been completed within the time so specified. The subsidy @ 15% has wrongly been sanctioned by the NABARD although he has applied under the category of "Farmer" to which subsidy @ 25% ought to be granted in view of the recommendation made by the Bank while sanctioning the loan. It is a further grievance of the petitioner the sanction of the subsidy was made belated vide order dated 4-3-2013 of the NABARD. However, during such period the bank has calculated the interest even on the amount of subsidy, which is liable to be repudiated and the interest on subsidy cannot be recovered from him, by the Bank. It is the further grievance, after issuance of the direction the rate of the subsidy accepted by the NABARD vide order Annexure P/1 dated 22-7-2014 is contrary to the guidelines applicable on the date of submission of the project accepting his loan, in the category "General" and not in the category of "Farmer". However, in view of the said submission referring various documents the relief as prayed for in the petition may be directed.
4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 Banks by filing their reply inter alia contended that the amount of loan was sanctioned on 28-3-2008 for a sum of Rs. 39,82,000/- under the scheme of CISS-NABARD. The first instalment was disbursed to petitioner on 31-3-2008. As the petitioner has not submitted the relevant document required to be forwarded to NABARD seeking advance subsidy or full subsidy till completion of the project, therefore, due to delay on the part of petitioner sanctioning of the subsidy was delayed. After sanction the interest on the sanctioned amount of subsidy has not been charged from the petitioner. In addition to the aforesaid referring various documents filed by the petitioner and an affidavit of the Bank it is contended that the loan has been sanctioned on the request made by the petitioner. However, for its repayment the borrower is liable in case the subsidy has not been sanctioned. An undertaking to this effect has been submitted by the petitioner, however, he cannot go back against his undertaking. It is also their case that the Bank submitted all the documents to the NABARD
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
