Vijay Mallya appears in special court, gets bail

FP 31 July 14

Vijay Mallya, chairman of Kingfisher Airlines, on Thursday got a bail on a surety of Rs 3 lakh and a guarantor from the Special Economic Offences Court in Bangalore in three  income tax cases against the grounded airline for not having remitted tax deducted at source (TDS)  worth around Rs 260 crore with the authorities for financial years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The special Judge granted Mallya bail  in all three cases  but asked him to furnish  Rs 1-lakh cash and solvent surety each in all cases.

“Mallya is not likely to co-operate … He is a non-resident Indian, frequently travelling abroad … (he is) likely to sabotage the trial as he is an influential businessman …,” the I-T Department counsel was quoted as saying inThe Hindu BusinessLine.

He also expressed apprehensions that Mallya was likely to sabotage the trial as he is an "influential businessman with enormous clout."

Mallya had sought exemption from personal appearance before the court after he was served summons in cases filed by the IT department which pertains to the airline's failure to remit TDS for three consecutive financial years beginning 2009-10.

The department had claimed a TDS (tax deducted at source) due of around Rs 400 crore from the airline, which is disputing the quantum of the tax demand. The cases were filed against the airline and Mallya for not remitting TDS.

The Bangalore police had served summons to the airline and Mallya on April 1, more than a year after the IT department filed the cases before the special court. In March this year, the court had ordered a show cause notice to the city police for their repeated failure to serve the summons.

Meanwhile, The Hindu BusinessLine photographer, GRN Somashekhar,  who was covering  Mallya’s appearance in a Bangalore court, was assaulted with a helmet by a few unidentified persons.

According to a Times of India report, "a man dressed in a black coat and another unknown person approached five photographers and one TV channel woman reporter, asking them to leave the court premises. When Mallya came out of the court building, the miscreants hurled abuses at the woman reporter and hit a photographer of a business daily on the head with a helmet."

The Hindu 1 Aug 14

Kingfisher Airlines head Vijay Mallya on Thursday personally appeared before the Special Court for Economic Offences in Bangalore, in connection with three criminal cases booked against him by the Income Tax Department for not remitting around Rs. 400 crore tax deducted at source (TDS) to the government.

The court granted him bail while directing him to deposit Rs. 1 lakh as cash surety in each case, bail bonds and solvent surety for the same sum. He was also directed to cooperate in the trial.

Mr. Mallya appeared before the court at 11 a.m. and the judge of the Special Court adjourned hearing of his bail plea to 3 p.m. and asked the counsel for the I-T Department to file objections. “Mr. Mallya is not likely to cooperate with proceedings… He is a non-resident Indian, frequently travelling abroad, and therefore there is a likelihood of him not cooperating with the trial and likely to sabotage the trial as he is an influential businessman having enormous clout…,” the I-T Department said in its objection filed through his counsel Jeevan J. Neeralgi.Mr. Mallya, who came back to the court around 3 p.m., left at around 6 p.m. after signing the bail papers.

The summons was first issued to him in February 2013 after the I-T Department lodged the first of its three complaints.

However, the Bangalore City Police failed to serve summons citing one or the other reason on several occasions, despite issuance of repeated summons.

Finally, lawyers representing him appeared before the Special Court in April 2014 after the Karnataka High Court, in January 2014, refused to interfere with the criminal cases. The proceedings before the Special Court were stayed from August 2013 to January 2014 in view of the interim order passed by the High Court earlier.

The I-T Department had filed three cases during February-March 2013 after the company failed to remit TDS amount for the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

‘RBI must permit second restructuring of debt’

Nirmagangwal  Brescon Corporate MD

Will help India Inc, banks tackle the problem of bad loans, says Brescon Corporate MD

Due to the economic slowdown in the last five years, the Reserve Bank of India will do well to throw a line to India Inc and banks so that the problem of bad loans can be tackled, says Nirmal Gangwal, Founder & Managing Director of corporate debt restructuring advisory firm, Brescon Corporate Advisors.

In this regard, Gangwal, who took the plunge into the advisory business in 2000 after successfully restructuring his leasing and hire-purchase firm, feels the time is ripe for the central bank to allow a one-time dispensation for second-time debt restructuring and relaxation in the rule relating to provisioning.

In an interview with Business Line, the CDR expert with triple professional qualifications, says business failure should not be considered a stigma. Further, to mitigate the problem of bad loans, banks should invest more time and money to understand the risks before lending money. Excerpts:

How will the RBI’s framework to revitalise distressed assets in the economy help banks and their borrowers?

The framework is a very bold and constructive move by the regulator and will go a long way in tackling distressed assets in the banking system.

Earlier bankers were under no time pressure to act (on the requests for debt restructuring). Banks took more time to take decisions on restructuring. In the process, six to nine months were wasted and clients’ operations suffered. The borrower was using all the working capital to service the loan.

Now under the new guidelines, if the client puts in a request, banks have to respond and the RBI has put the onus on the bank. If it gets a request for debt restructuring, the bank has to give the borrower a response within 30 days by forming a Joint Lenders’ Forum (JLF).

In the JLF, the problem has to be discussed by bankers and a solution found.

If 75 per cent of the banks in the consortium of lenders agree to the solution and 25 per cent don’t agree, then the latter’s loan exposure will become non-performing.

So there is now a clear-cut disincentive for not acting. So that will exert pressure on the banking system and accountability will increase because of that.

What the RBI is saying is that either accept the borrower’s restructuring request or reject it. So banks cannot sit on the request…

Earlier banks managed up to 90 days delay (in loan re-payment). But now when there is a 30-day delay, they have to report it under the new framework. The system has been in place from April 1. Almost 20 to 30 large accounts (iron & steel, infrastructure and textile) are already being processed under the new framework.

Will the number of cases referred to the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) cell come down as the JLF becomes active?

JLF is a forum where bankers can restructure an account themselves if they come to an agreement. They need not go for CDR. In some cases where there is no consensus, they can refer the case to the CDR which is a larger body. So the number of cases that will be referred for CDR will come down.

In India we despise failures. Failure in business is a stigma in our country whereas in the US and Europe, it is not. In business you cannot be successful all the time. Because of the stigma associated with business failure, going for CDR is also perceived as a stigma.

So if the corporates can avoid CDR, they will try to resolve their debt woes before the account is classified ‘Special Mention Account 2’ (where the principal or interest payment is overdue between 61-180 days) by banks.

What more can the regulator do to streamline the CDR process?

Frankly, when it comes to CDR, due to the extraordinary economic situation, they have to permit second restructuring to keep the asset classification standard just like the one-time dispensation the RBI gave in 2009. They should do this time also. Ultimately, this is a systemic problem, which calls for a one-time relief across sectors. In fact in 2009, the one-time dispensation was not so necessary because corporates had a lot more cash, which was generated from 2005 to 2008. But now we have seen that for five years the country has been impacted by economic downturn.

There are very draconian conditions for exit from CDR. For example if my loan is ₹500 crore and I have re-paid ₹500 crore and want to exit CDR, then according to the current guidelines, the right of recompense could be equivalent to ₹500 crore. This is like profiteering.

Suppose banks were charging 14 per cent interest on a loan before restructuring but reduce it to 12 per cent after restructuring. The maximum recompense you can charge is the 2 per cent difference. But under the CDR guidelines, there is a formula where the difference will work out to 5 per cent (as lenders could have lent at their benchmark lending rate plus risk premium plus tenor premium making the lending rate 17 per cent) over the last 10 years.

Rather, if the difference (for calculating the right of recompense) is no more than three per cent, then companies will get out of CDR faster. So the right of recompense is very adverse; it doesn’t give any incentive to perform.

The net present value (NPV) loss provision calculation when it comes to CDR is faulty. Suppose my loan carries 14 per cent interest but is reduced to 12 per cent under restructuring, the NPV loss is not calculated as the difference between 14 per cent and 12 per cent, but between 17 per cent and 12 per cent.

As the NPV of the revised cash flows will be much lower, banks have to take a higher hit on their P&L account. So banks don’t do good restructuring. They tend to charge higher interest rate and charge other fees here and there. This should not happen.

Given the economic slowdown, will there be more requests for debt restructuring from India Inc?

No, I don’t think so. Some debt restructuring cases could come up for another two to three quarters. Thereafter, there will be a substantial reduction in restructuring cases.

The RBI recently brought in clarity by way of revision (extension of time) in the date of commencement of commercial operations for project loans. I am sure the asset classification of large infrastructure projects will be preserved under the guidelines.

So within the extended time period, if there are multiple changes and multiple restructuring, the account will not be an NPA.

This has given great relief to some large infrastructure projects which are stalled. This will give a great relief to the power sector and the banking system.

A better way to manage NPAs

BL  Sidharth Birla 1 Aug 14

Mechanisms to deal with stressed assets need a relook. A national asset management company would help

Prolonged slow growth has adversely affected India’s financial sector. The banking system is sitting on a pile of stressed assets which, if not checked, will snowball into a larger problem. As of December 31, 2013, gross NPAs had reached 4.4 per cent of total loans in the banking system, with public sector banks such as the State Bank of India (SBI) reporting much higher levels (over 6 per cent).

If restructured loans are added, stressed assets are estimated at around 15 per cent of bank loans. Of the total stressed assets, the industrial sector (especially infrastructure) accounts for the largest stock of NPAs.

Restoring the capex cycle is essential for economic recovery. This will not be possible without restoring the health of the banking system.

Given the present levels of impaired assets in banks’ balance sheets and future credit requirements, Indian banks require capitalisation of about ₹5-10 trillion over the next five years.

Present system ineffective

The requirement is especially worrisome for government-owned banks: they account for over 70 per cent of total banking assets. Reduction in impaired assets helps lower the capitalisation burden to an extent.

Thus, finding a solution for faster recovery and/or rehabilitation of stressed assets is critical.

Despite the presence of an established legal and regulatory framework for resolution of stressed assets, the existing system doesn’t seem to be working effectively. There are 14 registered asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) in India, of which four are active.

However, the process of removing stressed assets from banks to ARCs is inefficient and ARCs have not been successful in quick recovery/rehabilitation. Despite a significant rise in NPAs over the last five years, the sale of stressed assets (in value terms) to ARCs has remained more or less stagnant.

Banks are under no pressure to clean up NPAs and thus they prefer to roll over debt rather than recognise an NPA and mark it down to its realisable value.

Lately, the pressure to build books has forced ARCs to make unrealistic valuations; the average acquisition price over the past 12 months has soared to 60 per cent of book value as against 25 per cent earlier, with over 90 per cent of transaction value being paid through security receipts (SRs). As a result, the secondary market for these assets has failed to take off.

Look at the specific issue

Quick recovery by ARCs is also affected by inadequate capital and inability to aggregate consortium debt. Moreover, the unrealistic pricing of underlying NPAs has kept foreign investors at bay, despite the Government allowing foreign investors to hold up to 74 per cent of the share capital of an ARC. No wonder, over 90 per cent of SRs are currently held by the selling banks, as most of these ARCs are bank-sponsored.

An effective resolution of stressed assets thus requires looking beyond the existing system and addressing the specific nature of the problem through a specialised ARC framework. A review of international experience in this regard reveals some common underlying principles in the approach towards the resolution of NPAs by most countries, regardless of different models being adopted.

The research reveals several things. First, it is much better, less expensive and less disruptive to establish a specialised AMC prior to a financial crisis as was done in the case of Malaysia and Taiwan. Establishing an AMC once the crisis has occurred results in the shrinkage of economy, and the process of recovery is longer and more painful.

Second, in most cases, direct government funding or government guaranteed bonds were used to inject the capital required for clearing a bulk of the NPAs, which was done through their one-time transfer from banks to the AMC.

Third, the successful AMCs had one core objective: the rehabilitation and restructuring of viable assets. Additional funding mechanisms were put in place for meeting working capital requirements of the AMCs for rehabilitation of viable projects. Finally, another common feature of successful AMCs globally has been fair valuation in asset pricing, which contributed in building investor interest and developing a secondary market for such assets.

Managing the assets

Based on these experiences, Ficci has suggested the creation of a specialised entity called the National Asset Management Company (Namco) to effectively tackle large NPAs in India. The proposed Namco framework is unique because it requires Government/RBI sponsorship but no capital injection or guarantees.

The Government shall encourage public sector banks (PSBs) to take up to 49.9 per cent equity in this entity and transfer large-scale stressed assets to it. The selling banks will agree to provide up to 25 per cent of the sale price as additional last-mile funding, for rehabilitation or completion, if required. No new legislation is required; some modifications would have to be made to existing regulations.

Namco’s focus would be on the rehabilitation of large-scale NPAs, restructured loans and other potential stressed assets, mainly in the infrastructure sector. Given the long-term nature of underlying assets, such specialised entities will be allowed to issue SRs with a tenor of up to 12 years. To encourage greater investor participation, Ficci has suggested the transfer of stressed assets at fair market value, determined by an independent valuer.

Given the importance of restoring the health of the banking system for supporting economic revival, the Government and the RBI should facilitate the creation of Namco by taking necessary administrative steps in this regard.

A pro-active, preventive approach is desirable if we have to ensure speedy revival of the economy. Of course, this should be a time-bound and close-ended framework to improve the overall hygiene of the system.

The writer is the president of Ficci

All India Bar Association opposes governor posts for former judges

A Subramani, TNN | Jul 29, 2014, 04.24PM IST

CHENNAI: The All India Bar Association (AIBA) has opposed the move to appoint former judges of the Supreme Court to political offices such as governor posts. 

Decrying former judges lobbying for political positions and referring to media reports that former Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam, who retired in April this year, is being considered for the gubernatorial assignment, AIBA chairman and senior advocate Adish C Aggarwala wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi saying such "unprecedented proposal has created anxiety in the minds of jurists, lawyers and judges alike." 

He said neither the former CJI nor the government had clarified the issue thus far.

Ex-judges could be considered only for judicial offices such as Lok Pal and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), AIBA said, adding that such adjudicatory functions would be befitting the stature of judges, more so because the appointment would be apolitical and not at the pleasure of the government. 

As for Justice Sathasiam, his vast experience on the judicial side could be so utilized for "common good," Aggarwala said. 

"Justice Sathasivam has also publicly declared that he is open to accepting any position befitting the stature of a former CJI, including the chairmanship of National Human Rights Commission or Lok Pal if the new government makes an offer," the AIBA representation said. 

However, the association welcomed the reported move to appoint senior advocates Soli Sorabjee and M N Krishnamani as governors saying they were doyens of the legal profession and known for their acumen and high standard of ethics. 

It’s time to amend law on contempt of court

Monday, 28 July 2014

The present law of contempt of court in India is a hangover of the original law on this subject in England. This originated from an undelivered judgment of J Wilmot in 1765, where the judge said the power of contempt of court was necessary to maintain the dignity and majesty of judges and vindicate their authority.

But whence comes this dignity and authority of judges? In England, in feudal times, it came from the king, who was the fountain of justice, and would often decide cases himself. Later, when he had many other duties, he delegated judicial functions to his delegates, who were called judges. Thus, in a monarchy, the judge really exercises the delegated function of the king, and for this he requires the dignity, authority and majesty which a king must have, to secure obedience.

In feudal times, the king was supreme, and the people were his subjects. They could not criticize him, and such criticism was punishable.

In a democracy, however, this relationship is reversed. Now it is the people who are supreme (see Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’), and all state authorities, including judges, are nothing but their servants.

Hence in a democracy there is no need for judges to vindicate their authority or display pomp and majesty. Their authority comes not from fear of contempt but from the public confidence, and this in turn depends on their own conduct, integrity, impartiality, and learning.

This view is accepted now even in England. As observed by Lord Salmon in AG vs Bbb (1981) A.C. 303, “The description contempt of court no doubt has a historical basis, but it is nevertheless misleading. Its object is not to protect the dignity of the court, but to protect the administration of justice”.

“Justice is not a cloistered virtue,” said Lord Atkin. “It must suffer the scrutiny and outspoken comments of ordinary men”.

In R. Vs. Commr. of Police (1968) 2 QB 150 Lord Denning observed, “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself…All that we ask is that those who criticize us should remember that, from the nature of our duties, we cannot reply to their criticism. We cannot enter into public controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication”.

Sometimes an upright judge is unjustifiably criticized. The best course of action for such a judge is to ignore baseless criticism (but pay heed to honest and correct criticism). He should have broad enough shoulders to shrug off baseless comments without getting perturbed or influenced.

Once a British newspaper ran a banner headline calling the majority judges of the House of Lords who decided the Spycatcher case ( Attorney General vs. Guardian Newspaper, 1987 3 AllE.R.316) “YOU FOOLS”. Fali Nariman, who was present in England at that time, asked Lord Templeman, who was one of the majority, why the Judges did not take contempt action. Lord Templeman smiled, and said that judges in England took no notice of personal insults. Although he did not regard himself as a fool, others were entitled to their opinion.

In Balogh vs Crown Court at Albon (1975) AC 373, the defendant told the Judge “You are a humourless automaton. Why don’t you self destruct?”. The judge smiled, but took no action.

Now coming to the law of contempt in India, we find it is uncertain. Nariman described it in a speech as ‘Dog’s Law’.

He quoted Bentham, who said that when a dog does something nasty we beat him for it. Similarly, the laws in England become known only when someone is punished by the courts. The same is true about the law of contempt in India, and thus it is a standing threat to freedom of speech.

To illustrate, in Duda’s case AIR 1988 SC 1208, a Union Cabinet minister said that the Supreme Court sympathized with zamindars and bank magnates.

He further said, “FERA violators, bride burners, and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their haven in the Supreme Court” and that Supreme Court judges have “unconcealed sympathy for the haves”. No action was taken against him. Nariman asked whether if such a comment had been made by an ordinary man the court would have taken no action.

Moreover, in an earlier decision, in the case of Namboodiripad (former CM of Kerala), who accused Supreme Court judges of being biased in favour of the rich, (an allegation similar to that of the Union minister in Duda’s case) the court convicted Namboodiripad for contempt (AIR 1770 2015). Where is the certainty or consistency in the law ?

We have two provisions in our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) which gives citizens freedom of speech, and Articles 129 and 215 which give the Supreme Court and High Court the power of contempt. How are these provisions to be reconciled. In my opinion, since Article 19(1)(a) is the right of the people who are supreme in a democracy, while Articles 129 and 215 are powers of judges, who are servants of the people, the reconciliation can only be done by holding that freedom of speech is primary, while the contempt power is only secondary.

It follows that the contempt power cannot be exercised because people are criticizing a judge. It can only be exercised if someone makes the functioning of the judge impossible eg if while a judge is hearing a case someone jumps on to the dias and tries to run away with the court file, or if he attacks or threatens a witness.

If someone calls a judge a fool inside the courtroom and goes away, in my opinion it is not contempt, for he has not stopped the functioning of the court.

But if he keeps shouting in court the whole day, and despite warning does not stop, he is obviously not letting the court function, and this would be contempt. After all disputes in society have to be adjudicated, and judges must decide cases to justify payment of salaries to them.

I submit that the time has come now for Parliament, the judiciary and others concerned to take a fresh look at the law of contempt of court in the light of what I have said above, and bring about necessary amendments.

(Published in The Times of India on 28/07/2014)

CAVEAT VENDOR : Taken for a ride by an immigration service

BL 28 July 2014

 With passports confiscated by an immigration agency, the Pandeys were rescued by the Indian High Commission

Feel defrauded or shortchanged by one of those ubiquitous immigration agencies that have sprung up everywhere? If yes, don’t just fret and fume. Consider approaching a consumer court. Here’s a recent case where Reena and Rahul Pandey received compensation.

Starting from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh, which passed an order in October 2013, the case went up to the State Commission and thereafter the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which ruled on the matter in April 2014.

Facts of the case

Reena and her husband Rahul Pandey approached Ganga Immigration & Education Services (Ganga Immigration) for getting a Malaysian work permit.

They were also assured of a job with a salary of 1,200-1,500 Malaysian ringgit, and were asked to pay ₹1.5 lakh each. This amount included the cost of a two-year permit along with food, accommodation, insurance and air fare.

The two also entered into an agreement (October 18, 2012) according to which they would be refunded the processing fee if the work provided was not to their satisfaction.

When Rahul and Reena went to make the payment, they were told they would have to go on a tourist visa which would later be converted into a work visa.

So, they paid ₹90,000 — together — with the rest to be given when their visas were converted. This was in addition to an earlier payment of ₹50,000.

Once they reached Malaysia, they were asked to pay for their accommodation by the Ganga International employee who was accompanying them on the trip.

Not only that, they were also asked to share a room with two other men. The next day, they were put on a night shift with a courier company with jobs far different from what was promised. Their troubles did not end there. Once they let known their intention of returning to India, they were asked to vacate the room at night.

Thereafter, they had to make their own arrangements for food and stay. The agent who had earlier taken their passports (to get work permits) refused to return them.

Left with no choice, the Pandeys approached the Indian High Commission which issued them an emergency certificate for their return to India.

Once back home, they approached the District Forum in Chandigarh.

Court to the rescue

The Court held that Ganga Immigration had made false promises to the Pandeys as a result of which they had lost their jobs in India and were also forced to sell a few of their assets to arrange for money to go abroad. It also found the agreement entered into between the two parties to be very vaguely worded.

Finding Ganga International guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Court ordered it to pay ₹1,80,000 — the money paid to it by the Pandeys plus what was spent by them in Malaysia. It also ordered ₹61,000 to be paid for the mental agony caused and litigation expenses.

Ganga International then appealed against the decision with the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum.

Undeterred, the company then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which dismissed the petition too.

It both upheld the decisions of the earlier two forums and ordered Ganga International to pay an additional ₹100,000. Of this, ₹25,000 each was to go to Reena and Rahul and the rest to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the National Commission

How to settle your credit scores

BL 28 july 14

Correct them online or by way of a written request with supporting documents

A credit score, whether from CIBIL or Experian, can have quite a say in whether you succeed in your loan or credit card applications, and in the interest rate you may get. But errors can crop up in your credit report due to no fault of yours, wholly messing up your finances.

So if you want to apply for a loan, it’s best to get your first credit score before making the application, just to be sure there are no surprises in store.

Identifying and rectifying any mistake in the score can then be done quickly.

The mistakes made

Two main factors account for credit score mistakes. First, it can be wrong entries at the time of making inputs, such as an extra zero added accidentally to a personal loan of ₹100,000.

And second, credit information companies rely on lending institutions sending data every month.

A delay or neglect in this updating can lead to payments not being credited to you when you apply for the score. Says Harshala Chandorkar, Senior VP, Consumer Relations, CIBIL, if you access your report within 45 days of making a payment, it may not be updated.

It’s a red flag when the date reported (date on which data is submitted by that lender) on your account is older than two months and your payment is not reflected.

A CIBIL TransUnion score, for example, is split into personal details and loan account details.

Both can have mistakes. Personal detail errors can be a mis-spelt name, incorrect date of birth, gender, address or telephone number. Identification details provided, such as PAN, voter ID or passport, could also be wrong. An incorrect PAN can have far-reaching implications, as that is linked to any financial transaction you make.

Loan account mistakes can similarly be disastrous. Your loan status may be wrong — stating overdue when you have made all payments or latest payment not updated.

Loan accounts you closed can be classified as written off or defaulted, especially if the lending institution hasn’t been updating details on time.

This can send credit scores crashing. The same loan details can accidentally show up more than once, raising the total credit, known as duplication errors.

Or your details can be mixed up with someone else’s, leaving you with loans you’ve never taken, or several requests for credit which you haven’t made, called ownership errors. In the most extreme situation, if your details are stolen and misused, that can reflect in your credit score details.

Correcting the mistakes

If you find mistakes in your credit score, report it immediately to the credit information company. It cannot make corrections on its own; it takes it up with the institution in question and, once confirmed, rectifications are done.

Reporting CIBIL score mistakes can be done online through their Dispute Resolution. Fill up the form available through their website www.cibil.com.

Give your personal details as well as a detailed explanation of the mistake.

If you are uncomfortable working online, send a written request to their Mumbai address. Always mention your CIBIL control number, available in the top right-hand corner of your report.

Rectifying Experian score mistakes can similarly be done by sending written requests. They require supporting documents too, such as identity and address proof, and sending them to their Mumbai office.

Barring complications, disputes are settled within a month’s time. Personal details may be quickly settled since it involves looking through identification proofs.

Loan account mistakes can take some time as a result of back and forth communication between the lending institution and the credit information company.

Recourse

Should the mistake you point out be disputed by the institution, the credit information company will let you know.

Theoretically, you can re-apply for correction, though it is rather pointless. Take it up with the bank. Protect your own interests. Chandorkar suggests maintaining proofs, such as loan closure letter, payment confirmation letters or emails, especially if you’ve settled previously written off or overdue accounts.

She also emphasises the need to keep your lender up to date with your personal details so that necessary changes and communication can be made.

Credit information companies too fall under the purview of the Reserve Bank. You can approach the banking ombudsman if you are still dissatisfied.

If all else fails, the consumer court is your last resort