New Delhi, June 16 -- The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the State Bank of India (SBI) and other banks for subjecting ordinary borrowers to what it described as "borderline harassment" while processing small loans even as they remain "casual" in sanctioning massive loans to larger entities that often end up defaulting. A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said it was increasingly noticing a troubling pattern in the banking sector where stringent scrutiny was reserved for individuals seeking loans for personal needs, whereas large-value loans appeared to be sanctioned with inadequate assessment of repayment capacity. "We indicate that it is coming to the notice of the Court that the banks in general, including respondent no.1-SBI, are casual in granting loans of huge amounts to bigger entities but at the same time very demanding apropos small loans where ordinary people come for personal requirements, yet subjecting them to more stringent conditions and a tedious process, which may amount to, in certain cases, borderline harassment," said the bench in its recent order. While dismissing a petition filed by a Haryana-based company that had defaulted on a Rs.8.09 crore loan availed from SBI, the court nevertheless expressed strong displeasure at the functioning of banks and urged India's largest lender to revisit its policies. The bench specifically called upon SBI to consider making the loan process "easier and fairer" for ordinary citizens and those belonging to weaker economic sections. "Be it noted that we are in no way suggesting easing of norms and requirements for loan facilities... but the procedure so adopted can certainly be made easier and fairer for loan-seekers/applicants and thereafter at the stage of recovery also," said the court. The bench suggested that lending and recovery policies should be redesigned to benefit those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum. In a notable move, the bench requested additional solicitor general Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for SBI, to convey the court's concerns to the bank "at the appropriate level". The observations came during the hearing of a dispute involving a company that had obtained a loan of Rs.8.09 crore from SBI in 2019 but defaulted almost immediately. "Defending the bank's actions, Dave argued that the borrower-company's conduct spoke for itself as it had failed to pay even a single instalment after availing the Rs.8.09-crore loan on commercial terms. She further pointed out that the company had already challenged the recovery proceedings before the DRT, where its securitisation application remains pending, and urged the court not to interfere in the matter." The bench found the borrower's conduct indefensible, describing its offer to repay only the principal amount six years later as "too little too late". It then declined to interfere with proceedings initiated by SBI under the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the borrower's secured assets, even as it granted the company a final two-week protection to pursue remedies before the debt recovery tribunal....