The following paragraphs are part of a writ petition filed by me before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The case started from the Consumer Forum, State Commission, and reached High Court via National Commission. The below portion is only covering my statement made years before about the Rs.9000 crore connected with the recent arrests. Present status of the writ petition is annexed at the end. It also shows how genuine customers are harassed and how dubious loans are sanctioned.
[Visit my home page: manjaly.net]
Para 3(g) Written reply to IDBI’s Version: “Para 3(g): With reference to para 3(vii) & (viii) of the OP’s version, the Complainant can only pity on the fate of the IDBI if the OP is claiming the above narrated facts as an action as per prudent banking norms. The Complainant also wants to add that perhaps that may be the reason why the recession started in IDBI way back in 2003-04 when the world experienced it only in 2008-09 and Parliament had to bail out the OP with a Rs.9000 crore package in the Union budget 2004 to tide over the problem of NPA (bad loans sanctioned by the OP) [news and budget portion is annexed at page nos.7&8]. These also indicate that the OP is soft towards doubtful customers and harassing the genuine straightforward customers like the complainant, who is a Central Govt. employee in the Pay Band 3 with grade pay 5400/- and having a track record of repayment of the earlier loan over the for reasons known to them.”
To this, IDBI’s reply: “Para 5 h. The Complainant has crossed the radius of relevance by making reference to the budgetary allocation of Rs.9000 crore made by the Government of India; which is alien to the present dispute. The intention behind doing so is despicable since it is aimed at disgracing the OP and maligning its image to obtain favourable order.”
And my further rejoinder to the above: “Para 2vH: “With reference to para 5h, the complainant states that the Op I interpreting the ‘sole discretionary power to cancel the agreement’ to be meant for harassing the straightforward customers who do not fulfil OP’s hidden agenda. I appears that this unqualified and arbitrary condition is incorporated in the agreement purposely, to enable corruption, as happened in the instant case as also mentioned in para 3(g) of the WRITTEN reply of complainant to the OP’s version. The bail out of OP by the Govt. as mentioned therein was in this context and the reference was to the gigantic Rs.9000 crore bad loans sanctioned by the OP to dubious parties as against the hindrances faces by complainant at the hands of the OP to get a paltry loan to the Complainant who is regular in repayment of the original loan and the way OP is dealing with it to harass him. This type of harassment is amplified in the NCDRC decision dated 10/11/2010 (Annexure I) in OP’s own sister concern. The revelation of the recent HOME LOAN SCAMS in various financial institutions (Annexure 2) are proof of how loans are given to unintended persons with pleasure. At the same time, a genuine customer is harassed for none of his fault.”
[visit my home page: www.manjaly.net]
The present status of the case:-