Education loan
Abhishek Mawle
(Querist) 01 June 2013
This query is : Resolved
Parent Will the bank.
Advocate Bhartesh goyal 
(Expert) 01 June 2013
Mr Abhishek
your query seems a hypothetical.bank can not grant such a big loan without joining parents as co borrower or without taking collateral security of third person.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 01 June 2013
parents must be guarantor of loan .
Guest
(Expert) 01 June 2013
Dear Abhishek,
In the light of your clarification, your initial query itself becomes incomplete and even wrong, as you stated that the loan was granted without verifying repaying capacity of parent. if your father gave guarantee on the basis of property that means the paying capacity was duly checked by the bank on the basis of the documents produced before them. For your information, ownership of property is also one of the source to know the creditworthiness of the borrower.
Secondly, you did not mention anything that your father was a retired person and he gave guarantee on the basis of the property.
Thirdly, while you have stated that the property proposed to be attached is a joint family property, even now your clarification is incomplete, as you have not made any mention in whose name the property was registered? By the way, what do you mean by joint family property? Is that registered in the name of the whole of the family or in the name of your your father or forefathers?
So, please make the things very clear instead of creating puzzles to enable the experts to express their appropriate opinion to help you to sort out your problem.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 02 June 2013
Agreed with expert Mr.Dhingra. Please note the following points:
1) Education loan is a social measure and the guidelines are framed by Finance Ministry, Government of India.
2) The repayment capacity is assessed basing on assumption that the student will get into employment after completion of course. That is the reason why during the study period and even after study period up to one year, repayment holiday (gestation period) is given. But banks can not guarantee employment and the future performance of the student. Hence if the quantum of loan exceeds certain limit (Presently it must be Rs.10 lakhs - but I am not sure), the Bank insist some collateral security.
3) While accepting the property for morgage the banks do verify the legal title of the person who offers the property for mortgage.
4) In the given circumstances, your father must have clear title to the property, though it is ancestral and inherited by him. If the property is in dispute much before the loan, your father might have hidden the fact with the Bankers. What is the dispute?
You have alternative course of action. Your brother can represent the bank that he is still jobless and has no means to repay the entire overdue amount in one go. He can request the bank to reschedule the repayment by depositing critical amount as suggested by the Bank. If the reasons are genuine banks do extend the time, if your brother or father arranges some repayment before reschedulement.
You are finding fault with the bankers that they have not assessed the repayment capacity. In education loan, repayment capacity is assumed. If loans with higher limits, the banks fall back on the collateral security. They are right. Instead of representing your problems, you would like to turn the tables against the bank which is not correct approach.
If you change your approach and follow the above suggestions, your brother may get temporary relief by postponing the instalments by the Bank.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 02 June 2013
You have mentioned that the Bankers are behind you, legally they can't. On other points learned experts have viewed a lot. Nothing more to add. If you don't want to clear the loan of your Brother and your father(being guarantor), legally you are not bound at alland also you should not suffer for it, morally you are to decide. Bank will recover it as per its procedure. For ancestral property till your father is alive, you have no title.
Guest
(Expert) 02 June 2013
Dear Abhishek,
I wonder, if you expect the experts to presume what are the real facts and the background of the case when you not made any mention anywhere earlier about (1) date of sanction of loan; (2) date of signing of agreement; (3) who is the signatory of the agreement; (4) the contents of bank's agreement with your father or brother; (5) With whom the property was under dispute, if other than you, with nature of dispute and from what date, as you mentioned that property mortgaged was in dispute in the court much before they mortgaged; (6) any of your own dispute about the property; and (7) the date of your court case on any dispute raised against the property of your father.
Even in your latest post you have not made anything clear about what type of dispute, with whom and from what date, is there and whether in the court or in the family members themselves.
Do you think that the circular, dated July 1, 2011, could in any case be made effective on retrospective effect basis on past cases of loans sanctioned before July 1, 2011?
Do you also think that everyone should presume everything about the background of the case and what actually is your own dispute about the property with your father or your brother? If the property belonged to your father, you cannot claim any share or raise any dispute during his life time.
About your plea, "the bankers would have at least bothered to take NOC from me and other members of the family", on what ground do you feel that the bank was obliged to ask for yours or family members' NOC? If the property is registered in the name of your father, he can dispose of the property in any manner he likes, what to say of mortaging that.
About your logic, "If banks start lending people money with no income and only assets like farmers, students, soon we will be back to zamindari days. I guess that is where India is heading. If the government really wants to help them let them give soft loans at their own risk since it is the obligation of the government to educate its citizens," it will be better if you put forward this logic before the court of law while presenting your case.
Experts here can only infer on the basis of what partial and brief information, as per your own interpretation of the contents of documents, is provided here by you.
Stretching too far your query by your bit by bit information may not help you get proper solution to your problem, as neither you can attach copies of the case related documents here, nor you can expect the experts to agree totally with your own concept of the case on the face of provisions of law or the rules of the bank for grant of loan.
So, it would be better for you to contact some local lawyer, show him all the documents to examine and analyse your case in right perspective and to advise you accordingly.
Abhishek Mawle
(Querist) 02 June 2013
Institution are expected to act responsibly.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 02 June 2013
Even after the long litigation your father and your Brother has some share in the property (so called disputed) the same can be attached even it was not mortgaged. Rest may be deposited by your Brother when start earning. If mortgages Bank can take action under SARFESI Act.
Guest
(Expert) 02 June 2013
Dear Sudhir,
The querist has preferred to remove the text of original query as well as all of his subsequent posts.
The query was about education loan to the brother of the querist with guarantee of retired father on colateral security of his house. The loan having not been paid the bank wants to attach the house, while the querist has objection on father's past action. But, it seems, the querist could not relish the opinions of the members on the issue, he preferred to remove all his postings.
Now he has posted his final advice for the bank/ financial institution, as, "Institution are expected to act responsibly." Probably he wants the experts to convey that to the banks and financial institutions.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 02 June 2013
No more to add without having the version of the querist in his own words.
Guest
(Expert) 03 June 2013
@Sudhir,
But he believes that NOC should have been taken from him and his family members by the bank even for his father's own property before accepting collateral security of his father.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 03 June 2013
