STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GAYATHRI V S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-Banks in W.P.(C) Nos.3646 of 2022 and 4821 of 2022 have filed the above review petitions aggrieved by the common judgment dtd. 2/3/2022 in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners therein aggrieved by denial of education loan by the officers of the State Bank of India. In both the cases, the education loan was denied on the ground that the CIBIL score of the co-borrowers are not satisfactory.

(2.) The writ petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Pranav S.R. v. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India and another [2020 KHC 4695] wherein it was held that unsatisfactory credit scores of the parents cannot be a ground to deny education loans for the reason that it is the repayment capacity of the applicant after their education which is the deciding factor. After considering the arguments advanced by the writ petitioners and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank, this Court, relying on the judgment in Pranav S. R. (supra) allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to reconsider their loan applications, disregarding the low credit scores of the co-obligants and sanction and disburse the eligible loan amount. It is aggrieved by the said direction that the respondents have filed these review petitions.

(3.) The Senior Counsel appearing at the instance of the review petitioners argued that the common judgment in the writ petitions has been rendered by this Court without analysing the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 and the Credit Information Companies Regulation, 2006. The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder are enacted with specific legislative intentions. The finding of this Court that low CIBIL score of the coobligant in an application for education loan cannot be a reason for rejection of loan application, is against the intention of the Act, 2005. It was further submitted that the effect of the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act was not considered by this Court while deciding the issue.