RAVINDER SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Education is an instrument of empowerment. This is the philosophy behind various steps taken by the Government of India and the State Governments for furtherance of education to empower the young generation. Unfortunately, the inadequacy of educational institutions as well as absence of requisite quality is, again, a matter of common knowledge. For years, no attention was paid to the important aspect of ensuring adequate remuneration to the teaching faculty, with the result that persons never took to teaching. One fine day, we could not have produced the requisite number of teaching faculty to meet the needs of teaming millions of new generation.

(2.) The aforesaid is the principal reason why, at great cost and personal inconvenience, parents are sending their young ones for education abroad. Australia is one such destination. It is to advance the career of their son that the petitioners applied for a loan of Rs. 13,00,000/-, which was duly sanctioned by letter dated 23.11.2006. In order to ensure due repayment of the loan, a small Chemist shop was mortgaged, which is the livelihood of the petitioners, aged 62 and 55 years, respectively. They are running a Chemist shop in the said property measuring 50 square yards, the estimated value of which, while granting the loan, was Rs. 15,10,000/-.

(3.) The son of the petitioners decided to transfer his studies from Victoria University, Melbourne to Meridian International Hotel School, Melbourne. The necessary steps were taken by the petitioners of informing the Bank. Apparently, the hope of the petitioners was that after completing his education, their son would be able to work and raise sufficient funds to repay the loan. This did not materialise as has been happening in the current economic situation all over the world. Moreover, the son of the petitioners was not keeping good health. They are, thus, left with a huge liability of the loan. The petitioners defaulted in complying with their financial obligation. The account was declared a Non Performing Asset. Proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is at this stage that the petitioners approached this Court, almost in desperation.