Tuesday, March 9, 2010

DRT and DRAT

 
 March,09,2010

 Debt Recovery Tribunal - : Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

The Debt Recovery Tribunals have been established 
by the Government of India under an Act of Parliament
(Act 51 of 1993) for expeditious adjudication and 
recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.

The Debt Recovery Tribunal
is also the appellate authority
for appeals filed against the
proceedings initiated by secured creditors
under the Securatizaton and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act.

Important: DRT Act/Rules:

    * The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002
    * The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993
    * The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
    * The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993
    * The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994
    * The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Financial and Administrative Power) Rules, 1997
    * The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Financial and Administrative Power) Rules, 1997
    * The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2004
    * The Securitisation Companies and Reconstruction Companies (Reserve Bank) Guidelines and Directions, 2003
    * Forms of Application for Registration of Securitisation/Reconstruction Companies
    * Revised Guidelines for Compromise Settlement of Chronic Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) of Public Sector Banks
    * Relevant Provision of Enactments Amended/Refered

There are five DRAT: 
 Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals in India,
situated at Allahabad, Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. 

DRATs are appellate tribunals For DRT:

Debt RecoveryTribunals.
In India there are more than 33 DRTs: Debt Recovery Tribunals,
situated at different State/City.

    * Following Appeals can be filed in DRAT:


   1. Against the final orders passed by the Presiding Officers of various DRTs.
   2. Against Interim orders/directions given by the Presiding Officers of various DRTs.
   3. Against orders on MA/IA/Appeal against RO’s orders, etc passed by the Presiding Officers of various DRTs.
   4. Against orders on appeals filed under The Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, passed by the Presiding Officers of various DRTs.
   5. Applications under subsection (6) of section 17 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Hydrabad Debts Recovery Tribunal got ISO-9001 certification in 2004 itself

http://propertybytes.indiaproperty.com/Images/Dec06/Auction2.jpg
By J. Venkatesan

 For the first time in judicial history, a Debts Recovery Tribunal, 
a quasi-judicial forum, has been awarded ISO-9001 
certification here for adhering to quality standards and
disposing of cases relating to recovery of outstanding 
dues to banks and financial institutions.
 
The recipient of this prestigious award from 
Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, Judge of the Supreme Court,
was the presiding officer of Hyderabad DRT, T. Ravi Shankar. 

It became the first Tribunal in the country to get thiscertification. 
As on July 31, this DRT had recovered dues to the banks 
and financial institutions to the tune of Rs. 963 crores. 
The total outstanding amount due to banks is about Rs. 90,000 crores. 

Speaking on the occasion, Mr. Justice Lakshmanan 
lauded the efforts of DRT Hyderabad for bagging 
this certification, which would enable it to discharge 
its functions more efficiently, and expeditiously in a transparent 
manner. 

He said such certification for a judicial forum would go 
a long way in ensuring quality standards in the justice 
delivery system and urged other DRTs to emulate DRT Hyderabad.


Mr. Ravi Shankar said in compliance with ISO 
requirements, the Tribunal had framed its quality 
policy, values and objectives. One of the objectives 
was to recover a sum of Rs. 200 crores in 2004-2005
and Rs. 300 crores in 2006-2007.

He said the ISOcertification also required that 
cases had to be disposed of speedily. 

The Joint Secretary in the Union Finance Ministry, 
P.M. Sirajuddin, said that the DRTs provided 
for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts
due to banks and at present 29 DRTs were 
functioning all over the country and there were 
five appellate tribunals.
  • Reference: Wednesday, Aug 11, 2004 The Hindu

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Gujrath H C upholds provisions of Securitisation Act

In a significant order, the Division Bench of 
Gujarat High Court has upheld the provisions of 
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).

The Act prescribes the procedure for taking
possession of secured assets of a borrower by
secured creditors like banks and financial institutions.

The Division Bench consisting of
Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhaya and
Justice A S Dave pronounced the order
while acting on a petition by one Rameshwaram
Cotton Industries (Gujarat) Pvt Ltd.

The petitioner had challenged the provisions of
Section 14 of the Securitisation Act.

He had made Rajkot District Magistrate,
Rajkot Mamlatdar and the bank from which the
credit was borrowed as respondents.

Under the provision of Section 14 of the Securitisation
Act, a secure creditor has to take assistance from
the appropriate officer of the rank of either District
Magistrate (DM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
(CM) to take possession of the secured asset in
case of default in repayment by the borrower.

And the DM or the CMM can order assistance
to the creditor to get the possession of the secured asset.
The petitioner's lawyer had contended that while
taking action under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act,
the District Magistrate had not issued any notice to
the petitioner and passed the order straightaway for
taking possession of the petitioner's property.

Calling the powers conferred on the District Magistrate
under Section 14 of the Act as violative of principles
of natural justice, the petitioner had challenged the provision.

While dismissing the petition, the court observed,
"Any action on the part of the secured creditor in
taking possession of secured asset, if not in accordance
with the Act or the Rules framed there under, such measures
as deemed to be taken... one can challenge such action
or measures taken by filing petition under
Section 17 of the Securitisation Act,
but such illegal action, if any, will not render Section 14 bad in law."

"We, therefore, uphold Section 14 of the Securitisation
Act being the procedure prescribed to take possession,
which is followed only after notice under sub-section (2)
to Section 13 and deciding the objections, if any, preferred
by the borrower...," the DB added.

The court suggested that any illegality in taking
possession of the secured asset can be challenged
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

DRAT- Chennai judgement in RA-16/2002

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

DATED THE 28TH JANUARY, 2004

PRESENT:  HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE A. SUBBULAKSHMY
CHAIRPERSON

RA-16/2002
(OA-457/1999-DRT, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Red Hills, Hyderabad.
…  Appellant
            (Counsel:  Mr. K.S. Sundar)

AND

1.  Mr. D.V.S. Raju,
     S/o. D. Balarama Raju,
     Aged about 60 years,
     Residing at 5 Balaji Avenue,
     T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

2.  M/s. A.P. Carbides Ltd. (In liquidation),
     Rep. by the Official Liquidator,
     High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
     Hyderabad.

3.  Mr. N.V. Janardhana Rao,
     S/o. N. Satyanarayana Murthy,
     Aged about 65 years,
     Residing at 6-1-69/A/4/8,
     Saifabad, Hyderabad.

4.  The Industrial Development Bank of India,
     “Parishrama Bhavan”, 5th Floor,
     5-9-58/B, Fatehmaidan Road,
     Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-29.

5.  The Industrial Finance Corporation of India,
     Bank of Baroda Building,
     16, Parliament Street,
     P.B.No.363, New Delhi-110 001.
6.  The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd.,
     163, Bombay Reclamation Scheme,
     Mumbai-500 021.

7.  Life Insurance Corporation of India,
     “Yogakshema”,
     Jeevan Bhima Marg,
     Mumbai.

8.  Unit Trust of India,
     13, Sir Vittaldas Thackerey Marg
     (New Marine Lines),
     Post Bag No.11410,
     Mumbai-20.
…  Respondents
            (Counsel:  Mr. T.V. Ramanujam for Mr. D. Gopinath)

:  O R D E R  :

1.         The Original Application (OA) was decreed by the PO, DRT, Hyderabad, as against the other defendants except Defendant No.3 and the OA was dismissed as against D3 by Order dated 18.6.2002.  Aggrieved against this dismissal Order as against D3 the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal.

2.         Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that D3 is also liable for the Suit claim since he executed the guarantee and the decree has to be passed as against D3 also.  Counsel for the 1strespondent 3rd defendant submits that D3 resigned from his Directorship in the year 1981 and he was no longer the Director and he had no more claim over the 1st defendant Company and all the loan transactions were done by the next set of Directors and not by this respondent and the 1st respondent is not liable and the Order passed by the PO, DRT, is not to be interfered with. 

3.         Counsel for the appellant Bank very much relies upon the guarantees executed by the 1st respondent, other Directors and the 1st defendant Company and the Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that as per the guarantee executed the 1st respondent is liable since it is a continuing guarantee.  He relies upon the guarantees Exs.A3 to A5.  Ex.A3 is the Deferred Payment Guarantee executed on 22.6.1978 between the Bank and the D1 Company.  The guarantee shall remain in force until 30.4.1989 unless a Suit or action to enforce a claim under the guarantee is filed within three months from that date.  Exs.A4 & A5 are the Counter Guarantees dated 22.6.1978 executed by the D1 Company and the three Directors viz. N.V. Janarthana Rao, K. Srinivasa Rao & D.V.S. Raju. 

4.         Counsel for the 1st respondent pointed out this Ex.A5 guarantee was executed by the Directors only in their capacity as Directors and they never executed personal guarantee and after ceasing from the Directorship they are no longer responsible.  Clause (b) of Ex.A5 Counter Guarantee states “The Bank shall be at liberty to debit the Current Account maintained by us at the Bank’s Red-Hills Branch with any amount paid or payable by the Bank pursuant to Clause (a) of this Counter-guarantee.”   Clause (c) of the Guarantee states that “It is further agreed that this Counter-guarantee will remain in force until the Bank if finally discharged of the liabilities under the said guarantee and has obtained confirmation in writing thereof from the Beneficiary and received therefrom the said Guarantee duly redeemed.”   Clause (b) in this guarantee reveals that the Bank is at liberty to debit the Current Account maintained at the Bank’s branch with any amount paid or payable by the Bank.  Only in their capacity as Directors they have executed this guarantee.  Admittedly, the 1st respondent resigned from his Directorship in the year 1981.  So, after he resigned from the Directorship since he is no longer the Director of the Company, he cannot be held liable for any subsequent dealings or for the amount due to the Bank and only the next set of Directors will be liable.  After his resignation, D3 cannot be held responsible for any amount due to the Bank because he executed the guarantee only in his capacity as Director of that Company.

5.         It appears that the other two Directors who also executed the guarantee Ex.A5 are no more and their LRs are not added as parties in the Suit.  Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that when the other guarantors died and no LRs have been added and as the Suit has been abated as against those guarantors, this respondent is also absolved of his liability under that guarantee.  He relies upon the decision in Vol.I (2003) Banking Cases Page-555 (SC) (Zahirul Islam Vs. Mohd. Usman & Ors.) wherein it has been held that “Judgment pronounced against defendant notwithstanding death of Defendant No.2 shall have same force and effect as if judgment pronounced before death took place:  Permission contemplated under Order 22 Rule 4 not obtained from Court exempting plaintiff from bringing on record L.R. of the deceased defendant No.2: Order under record unsustainable.”

6.         The non-joinder of LRs of the deceased has resulted in the loss of valuable right of subrogation available to the 1st respondent. Even though the 1st respondent has executed the guarantee, since he has executed the guarantee in his capacity as the Director and as he also resigned from the Directorship in the year 1981, the 1st respondent cannot be held liable.  Further, there is also variation in that contract and the loan account was converted into Cash Credit Account after ten years and the Suit has been filed as against this erstwhile Director the 1st respondent and for that variation of contract also the 1st respondent cannot be held responsible.  So, viewed at any angle it is crystal clear that the 1st respondent cannot be held liable for the Suit claim.  The 1st defendant Company availed the loan facility.  Even in the plaint the Bank has clearly accepted that in or about April, 1982 there was a change in the management of the 1st defendant Company and the defendants 2 & 3 ceased to be the Managing Director and Director respectively and the other Director K. Srinivasa Rao who executed the personal Counter guarantee alongwith the other guarantors D2 & D3, has expired.  It is further recited in the plaint that the management of the Company also appear to have abandoned their efforts to resuscitate the industry and at the request of the present management and with a view to safeguard the properties, the plaintiff and other financial Institutions are providing the 1st defendant necessary finance from time to time to pay salaries to the security staff and these sums are being debited to the 1st defendant Company’s account.  It is also recited in the plaint that at the request of the 1st defendant, the amounts were initially debited to the Cash Credit Account maintained at the T.I.F. Campus (Kurnool) Branch and the outstanding debits were then re-transferred to the account maintained at the Red Hills (Hyderabad) Branch, as that branch was handling these transactions.  These things clearly establish that there was variation in the contract and there was change in the management of the 1st defendant Company even in the year 1982 and the 1st respondent ceased to be the Director and he was never in the management of that Company and after the new management has taken over the responsibility the erstwhile Director the 1st respondent cannot be held responsible for the amount due to the Company after so many years after his resignation in the year 1981. 


7.         Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that because D3 the 1st respondent executed the Counter Guarantee, the 1st respondent is liable for the Suit claim.  He relies upon the decision reported in (1969) I Supreme Court Reports Page-622 (Bank of Bihar Ltd. Vs. Damodar Prasad & Anr.) wherein it has been held that “It is the duty of the surety to pay the decretal amount. On such payment he will be subrogated to the rights of the creditor under S. 140 of the Indian Contract Act, and he may then recover the amount from the principal and the very object of the guarantee is defeated if the creditor is asked to postpone his remedies against the surety.”  But in the case on hand, the 1st respondent has resigned from his Directorship and subsequent dealings by the Bank were done only with the new Directors and D3 has nothing to do with these transactions and D3 after his resignation cannot be held liable.  Since D3 resigned in the year 1981 and subsequent contract has been entered into by the new Directors and all the dealings have been done by the new Directors, D3 cannot be held liable on the guarantee executed by him.


8.         Even in the Written Statement, the 3rd defendant 1st respondent has set out that the signatories to the Counter guarantee dated 22.6.1978 have ceased to be associated with the 1stdefendant Company as from April, 1982 to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has by its conduct and the subsequent Agreement entered into with the new Directors absolved this defendant of all the liabilities under the Counter guarantee.  It has been agreed by the plaintiff Bank itself that there was a change in the management and the plaintiff has dealt with the 1st defendant with the new Directors and extended further loans and they were looking forward only for the new Directors for the fulfillment of the obligations.  So, it is evident that the liability of the 1st respondent under that guarantee was discharged immediately on resignation by this respondent.


9.         The significant factor is that before filing of the Suit, no notice was given to the 1st respondent at all. Ex.A17 Notice was sent only to the new set of Directors Mr. Sudheekar Reddy and the Managing Director.  Ex.A17 was given only to Mr. Sudheekar Reddy and the Managing Director and not to the 1st respondent.  Only Mr. Sudheekar Reddy and the Managing Director have been asked to arrange for payment of that amount immediately to the Bank for the dues.  Even for the amount due in 1981 by the 1st defendant Company, only Mr. Sudheekar Reddy and the Managing Director have been asked to pay that amount under Ex.A17.  No notice has been sent to the 1st respondent at all before filing of the Suit directing that the 1st respondent pay that amount.  The sending of the Notice to the new Directors in Ex.A17 clearly reveals that the Bank itself accepts that only the new set of Directors are liable for the Suit claim and not the old Director.  The fact that the Bank did not give any notice to the 1st respondent for repayment of that amount before filing of that Suit also clearly reveals that the Bank is well aware that the 1st respondent 3rd defendant is not liable for the Suit claim.  The applicant State Bank of India is fully aware of the new promotional Agreement and the change in management which has been clearly set out in the plaint.  The new co-promoters Mr. Sudheekar Reddy and Mr. George Reddy were to take over all obligations and liabilities and they also undertook to discharge earlier co-promoters from all liabilities by giving fresh guarantees.  The new co-promoters had given fresh guarantees and the appellant State Bank of India is aware of the change of management and permitted the change of management and the State Bank of India is aware that the old Directors of the Company had ceased to be co-promoters of that Company. 

10.       It is also evident that the appellant Bank has changed the hypotheca which was originally hypothecated, without the knowledge and consent of D3.  So, it is evident that D3 was not concerned after his resignation in 1981.  The granting of time to the D1 Company by the applicant Bank in the matter of Bills under the Deferred Payment Guarantee (DPG) without the consent of D3 has attracted the provisions of Section-135 of the Contract Act, which entitles D3 for discharge from the original contract.  The act of the applicant Bank in merging DPG instalments into the Cash Credit Account of the Company has resulted in variation of the terms of contract.  The applicant Bank entered into agreement with the new Directors.  So, it is crystal clear that only the new Directors will be liable and D3 cannot be held liable for the Suit claim.  Because of the variation in the terms of contract, the resignation of D3 from the Directorship in the year 1981 and the entering into contract by the new Directors of the D1 Company with the applicant Bank, it can be safely concluded that D3 the 1st respondent cannot be held liable for the Suit claim.  The PO, DRT, rightly considered this point and dismissed the OA as against the 3rd defendant.  I see no ground to interfere in the Order passed by the PO, DRT, Hyderabad.

11.       Appeal dismissed.
(Dictated to PS & the transcript corrected, pronounced & signed by me in the open court today the 28th January, 2004).

[ MRS. JUSTICE  A. SUBBULAKSHMY ]
CHAIRPERSON

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

SBI Vs Vijay Kumar-High Court- Writ- judgement



CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil)  1573 of 2007

PETITIONER:

State Bank of India

RESPONDENT:

Vijay Kumar


DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2007


BENCH:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the
respondent.

3. The background facts which are almost undisputed are as follows:
The appellant-bank field a recovery petition before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short `DRT’).

The amount claimed was
Rs.14,92,295.99. The decree was passed and revision petition was filed by
the appellant-bank. A compromise deed was filed at the Lok Adalat setting
out the different terms of settlement. The relevant term was that the
respondent was to deposit 20% of the compromise/settlement amount within 30
days i.e on or before December 28, 2003 and the remaining amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- was to be paid in equal monthly/quarterly/half yearly
instalment on or before March 31, 2004. There was also a failure clause
setting out the consequences of default in payment according to the time
schedule. DRT passed an order in terms of the compromise. Undisputedly
there was some default in payment. Since the appellant-bank took the view
that there was non-compliance with the terms of the compromise/settlement,
therefore, the appellant-bank was entitled to recover the entire decreetal
amount.

4. A writ petition was filed before the High Court indicating the
difficulities on account of which the payments could not be made in time.
The High Court took note of the fact though there was some default on the
part of the respondent the entire amount had been paid by 12th July, 2004
along with interest of Rs.45,000/- for the defaulted period. The High Court
held that the difficulties were genuine. The respondent had proved his bona
fide by making the payment of whole amount as agreed to in the compromise
and that also paid for the defaulted amount.

5. The High Court was of the view that the first instalment was paid in
time. Therefore, it accepted the stand of the writ petitioners and held
that the compromise should be acted upon but directed the bank to charge
interest for the defaulted period @ 10.4% p.a.. A sum of Rs.20,000/- which
was deposited pursuant to the order of the High Court was directed to be
adjusted for publication charges etc.

6. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant-bank
submitted that the High Court has wrongly held that the first instalment
was made in time. Additionally, when the amounts had not been paid
according to the fixed schedule the default clause operated and the High
Court could not have come to the aid of a defaulter.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that High Court took note
of all the relevant factors, the bona fides of the respondent and even had
directed charging of interest which in fact has been charged by the
appellant bank and has been paid. Normally, when there is failure of the
terms of the settlement the default clause, if provided, operates.

Therefore, in the peculiar features appellant-bank agreed to settle the
claim taking into account various factors. It is true that the High Court
has erroneously recorded that Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid within the
stipulated time. The details of the payment are as follows:

S. No. Date of       Amount      Mode of Payment
Payment

1. 28.12.2003   Rs.90,000 Cash deposited with the Respondent
bank

2. 2.1.04     Rs.20,000 Cash deposited with the Respondent
bank

3. 5.1.04     Rs.10,000 Cash deposited with the Respondent
bank

4. 25.4.04     Rs.3,80,000 Cash deposited with the Respondent
bank

5. 12.7.04     Rs.5,00,000 Vide bank draft deposited with the
Recovery officer.

Total     Rs.10,00,000

8. Additionally, we find that the respondent had paid Rs.45,000/- as
interest for the defaulted period. Interestingly, pursuant to the direction
of the High Court the appellant-bank had charged interest of Rs.29,353/-.
There into arrangements with third party for selling the property but the
payment in respect of the sale was to be made directly to the bank.

9. It is noted that Bank at no point of time before the final payment was
made appears to have indicated that settlement failed because of failure to
stick to the time schedule.

10. Above being the position, we do not find this to be a fit case where
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is to be
exercised. The appeal is dismissed.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Are Non Performing Assets Gloomy from Indian Perspective ?


By : Arpita
on 14 February 2010

 

Introduction :
When a borrower, who is under a liability to pay to secured creditors,
 makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, the
 account of borrower is classified as nonperforming assets (NPA) .NPAs cannot
be used for any productive purposes because they reflect the application of scarce
capital and credit funds. Continued growth in NPA threatens the repayment capacity
 of the banks and erodes the confidence reposed by them in the banks.

 In fact high level of NPAs has an adverse impact on the financial strength of
 the banks who in the present era of globalisation, are required to conform to
stringent International Standards. “Non Performing Asset” means an asset or
account of a borrower, which has been classified by bank or financial institution
 as substandard, doubtful or loan asset . After nationalisation and globalisation
the initial directive that banks were given was to expand their branch network,
increase the saving rate and extent credits to rural, urban and the most important
SSI sectors .

 No doubt this mandate has been achieved admirably under the regulation
 of economic reforms initiated in 1991 by the then Finance Minister and
present Prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. No doubt it would have been
incomplete without the overhaul of Indian Banking System.

 Then all of a sudden focus shifted towards improving quality of
 assets and better risk management. The Narasimhan committee
 reports (First report) recommendations are the basis for initiation of
the process, which is still continuing. The committee has recommended
 the enactment of a new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks
 and financial institution to take possession of the securities and do sell them
 without the intervention of the court.

The Narasimham Committee Report




the Narasimham Committee report  is without doubt a
major path- breaking piece of work and deserves
 the support of all who yearn for a more rational and effective banking
system in this country. In order to have the proper understanding of NPA
menace, it is important to have a brief idea of growth and structural changes
 that have taken place in the banking sector.

The growth of the banking system can be assessed in five phases:-

1) Preliminary Phase(series of birth and death of banks)
2) Business Phase(period between 1949- 19 69)
 3) Branching Out Phase(period when commercial banks got nationalised)
4) Consolidated phase(weaknesses and defects were identified)
 5) Reforms and Strengthening Phase(1991 to till date) Indian Banking Industry Saddled with High NPAs:

 Reasons:

The liberalization policies launched in 1991 opened
the doors to the entrepreneurs to setup industries and business,
 which are largely financed by loans from the Indian banking systems.

 Business firms and companies fail to pay the principal amount as well
as the interest amount (Bad Loan) . In the global economy prevailing today,
the vulnerability of Indian businesses has increased.

A culture change is crept in where repayment of bank loans
 is no longer assured. A constant follow up action and vigil are to
 be exercised by the operating staff. Diversion of funds and willful
 default has become more common. As per a study published in
the RBI bulletin in July 1999, diversion of funds and willful default are
 found to be the major contributing factors for NPAs in public and private
sector banks.

 Today, the situation looks optimistic with the industry succeeding
 in overcoming the hurdles faced earlier. The timely restructuring and
rehabilitation measures have helped to overcome setbacks and hiccups
 without seriously jeopardizing their future. The greater transparency and
stricter corporate governance methods have significantly raise the credibility
 of the corporate sector. The attrition rate in corporate sector has come down.

 The challenges before the banks in India today are the raising NPAs in the
 retail sector, propelled by high consumerism and lowering of moral standards.

Other Factors:
The problem that India faces is not lack of prudential norms but the legal
impediments and time consuming nature of asset disposal process ,
 ‘postponement’ of the problem in order to report high earnings and to
 some extent manipulation of by the debtor using political influence.

Most of the banks in India are into this malpractices and fraudulent acts.
 In the process of earning high returns on their investment by the above
stated method, the banks become bankrupt or penniless.
 A vicious effect of the slow legal process is that banks are shying
away from risks by investing a greater than required proportion of their
 assets in the form of sovereign debt paper.

The worst part is that the NPA of a private enterprise is
 both financially and politically undesirable.

 Earlier bankruptcy Law favored borrowers and law courts
were not reliable vehicles. But the circumstances have changed.
Laws were passed allowing the creation of asset management companies,
foreign equity participation in securitisation and asset backed securitization.

 Impact of NPAs on Banking Operations:


The efficiency of a bank is not reflected only
 by the size of its balance sheet but also the
level of return on its assets. The NPAs do not
 generate interest income for banks but at the same
time banks are required to provide provisions for NPAs
 from their current profits.

The NPAs have deliterious impact in the interest income on the bank,
bank profitability because of the providing of the doubtful debts, return
on investment of course.

NPAs also disturb the Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAV)
and economic value addition (EVR) of the banks.

 It is due to above factors, the public sector banks
are faced with bulging NPAs which results in lower
 income and higher provisioning for doubtful debts and
it will make a dent in their profit margin.

In this context of crippling effect on banks operation
 the slew asset quality is placed as one of the most
 important parameters in the measurement of banks
 performance under the Camel’s supervisory rating system
of RBI. Whether trading of NPA between Banks illegal or not:
 The word ‘trading’ here means purchasing or selling of NPAs
 between banks. So assignment or trading falls under the guidelines
of Banking Regulation Act (BRA) which makes it legal .

But the Gujarat High court has recently held that the buying
 and selling of non performing assets is illegal.

The court has ruled that such an activity is not a part of “banking activity”
as contemplated under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

The court held that “Interse transfer of NPAs by banks is illegal
 and not a part of banking activity under the BR Act.

Trading in debts is a speculative form of transaction that is not
 permissible activity and thus, cannot be a part of the business of a
 banking system” The ruling had an impact of sending shockwaves through
 the backbone of Indian economy and came under the greater scrutiny
 in academic circles too.

 But the judgment is yet to stand the Supreme test
 of judiciary scrutiny as the aggrieved Banks and concerned
regulatory bodies (RBI and Indian Bank Association) have challenged
 the decision before the Supreme Court. In the interim, the legality of
 loan purchases is under cloud till now. I feel the recent pronouncement
 of the Gujarat High Court has misinterpreted the term ‘debt’ from legal as
 well as accounting point of view. A loan item or the borrower is an asset of
a bank and not a debt. Thus, de-facto the assignment of loan (good or bad)
 amounts to transfer of asset and not debt.

Even RBI considers interse NPA assignment between banks
to be a significant tool for resolving the issue of Non Performing
Assets and in the interest of Banking policy .

The decision given by the Honorable Courts in the cases
that have been cited below (footnote16) were in favor of “assignment of NPAs
between banks.

Measures to control NPAs menace:
 A lasting solution to the problem of NPAs can be achieved
only with proper credit assessment and risk management
mechanism. It is necessary that the banking system is equipped
 with prudential norms to minimize if not completely avoid the problem
 of credit risk.

 Effective management of NPA rather than elimination is prudent.

All these issues gave the passage of evolution of the Securitisation
 and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of
 Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 .

 It is a unique piece of legislation which has
 far reaching consequences. Securitisation
in India is still in a nascent stage but has potential
in areas like mortgage Backed securitisation.

 This act has a overriding power over the other
legislation.
SARFAESI ACT was promulgated
 to regulate the financial assets and enforcement of
 security interest and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The main purpose of this act is to enable the creditors
take possession of the secured assets and to deal with them without the
intervention of the court.


 No doubt this Act was challenged in various courts

 on ground that it was loaded heavily in favour of lenders,
 giving little chance to the borrowers to explain their views
 once recovery process is initiated under the legislation.

The major problem with the Indian banking system is that they
depend largely upon lending and investments.
The banks in the developed countries do not depend
 upon this income whereas 86 percent of income of Indian
 banks is accounted from interest and the rest of the income
 is fee based. The banker can earn sufficient net margin by investing
 in safer securities though not at high rate of interest.
It facilitates for limiting of high level of NPAs gradually.

It is possible that average yield on loans and advances net
 default provisions and services costs do not exceed the
 average yield on safety securities because of the absence of
 risk and service cost. The corporate debt restructuring is also
one of the methods suggested for the reduction of NPAs.


 Its objective is to ensure a timely
and transparent mechanism
 for restructure of corporate debts of viable corporate entities
 affected by the contributing factors outside the purview of DRT
 and other legal proceedings for the benefit of concerned.
 The problem of non -performing loans created due to systematic
banking crisis world over has become acute.

Focused measures to help the banking system
to realise its NPAs
has resulted into the creation of specialised bodies called Asset
Management Companies which in India have been named Asset
 Reconstruction Companies (ARC’s)

The main objective of ARCs is to act as

1) A agent for any bank or financial institution for the purpose
 of recovering their dues from the borrowers.
 2) A manager of the borrowers’ asset taken over by banks or financial institution.
3) The receiver of properties of any bank or financial institution.
4) There have been instances of banks extending credit to doubtful debtors
 (who deliberately default on debt) and getting kickbacks for the same.
Ineffective Legal mechanisms and inadequate internal control
mechanisms have made this problem grow – quick action has
to be taken on both counts so that both the defaulters and the
 authorising officer are punished heavily. Without this, all the
mechanisms suggested above may prove to be ineffective.

 Conclusion

The contaminated portfolio is definitely a bane for any bank.
 It puts severe dent on the liquidity and profitability of the bank
where it is out of proportion.

It is needless to mention, that a lasting
solution to the problem of NPAs can be achieved only with proper credit
 assessment and risk management mechanism. It is necessary that the
banking system is to be equipped with prudential norms to minimize if not
 completely to avoid the problem of NPAs.

The onus for containing the factors
 leading to NPAs rests with banks themselves. This will necessitates organizational
restructuring, improvement in the managerial efficiency and skill up gradation for proper
assessment of credit worthiness

It is better to avoid NPAs at the nascent stage of credit
consideration by putting in place of rigorous and
appropriate credit appraisal mechanisms.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Debt Recovery and debt Management in India

 pastdue.jpg (499×380)

Until the advent of the collection of debt management,
debt recovery in India was never treated as a skilled
worker and has always needed, as one of the tasks
that the legal services of banks and financial institutions are well off.

The legal department of a typical organization went to
work as a set of as strictly a legal matter and not an
increase in revenue. Litigation is the only known tool
for recovery and any other instrument or usedused by the industry.

Litigation as a measure of recovery has always had its
limits because of lengthy court proceedingsand liquidation
of the legal system in India is criticized. In addition, foreign
companies have introduced the concept of banking specialized collections.

Debt Collection Services, which is one of the many services
that are started, outsourced to specialist agencies.
Collection of reforms was very humble origins as a specialist and only qualifiedService.


But over time, with the emergence of India as a destination for
global outsourcing of domestic firms also outsourcing as a
business tool effectively. With today's result, which plays
the third part of the field of debt collection an important
role in the Indian economy.

The industry employs hundreds of thousands of Indians,
as a group of professionals that serve many industries,
banks, suppliers of telecommunications services for insurance
companies.Typically, only small recoveries, assigned by
unpaid bills by customers for collection agencies.

Not only the activity of harvesting crop as a direct source
of employment for thousands of people, but their contribution
to the economy is stronger, it helps to infuse money into the
economy that would not otherwise obtain -.
The economic benefits of debt on the Third party
collection. Citibank is the pioneer in introducing
the thirdTechniques for detection of parties in India.


The coverage of the needs of the sector in India has also
experienced strong growth this year by higher funding costs,
higher inflation and a weakening global economy forces
businesses and individuals by various difficulties.
The underlying debt has gone through the roof and
banks, loans and organizations increasingly bad on their books.

If a High Street bank, credit card lender or mobile
phone company, an increasing numbercontact the debt
collection company in an increasingly difficult.

The remittance industry in India is growing rapidly
and is without doubt the growing point.
The credit card has been increased up to
87% at 6.114 billion U.S. dollars U.S. per
year, from USD 2.844 million in the prior
year period. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI),
which regulates the banking sector of the country,
encouraging banks bad loans from their books
faster transmission becauseHolding more capital
in risky assets in May by default.

INDUSTRY COLLECTION – No Script 

 
Reforms collection has its own inherent weakness
due to the nature of this activity is regulated in this country
is primitive.

Are people who work in the field, not trained in both
social skills and legal knowledge.

Be regulated, the procedures are standardized and there are no
specific controls in the industry and balances. Another issue
is consideredInstrument of last resort for recovery.
But the industry has been manipulating the legal system
to their advantage by judges as agents of collection costs.

We see that large companies with large amounts of revenue
tacit understanding with the local judges on the lower level.
Because of the small minority of judges in criminal wrinkles
default calendar only printed and recorded Sponsored debtor
to pay the taxes. slow and prolonged civil warThe exploitation
of the judicial process has been insured in this age of instant
results when earnings targets are the most sacrosanct.

In a highly rigorous and cut his throat, the pressure on banks
to maintain their books of accounts in good health so
aggressive in nature and extra-legal methods that are used for quick access.

Government / RBI intervention 


Recovery of debts in the past, a lot of margin,
and it was not uncommon for collectors to annoy,
harass or humiliate debtors bearextrajudicial measures.
Intervening in the absence of a judicial system had to follow
to establish guidelines for the industry.

Following intervention by the judiciary, has
been awakened to the need for the RBI to
regulate debt collection agencies to rebel and
follow their guidelines for the banking sector.


The guidelines set the RBI applicable to banks
that have been assigned to collection agencies.
Banks, in turn, through their contracts withCollection
agencies, so that he, the RBI guidelines.

According to RBI guidelines, it is forbidden
to violence and damage to the debtor, the
obscene language or repeatedly use the
telephone to harass debtors threaten.
Moreover, the debt collector may not use
the property or garnish a consumer or a
salary, without resorting to judicial proceedings.
Here are some of the key aspects of the investigation.

These rules are formalized by the bank top in India – RBI. 

1.DSA / DMA / Recovery Agents of at least 100 hours of training.

2. Recovery agents should be communicated to the
borrower only call the phone numbers for the borrower.

3. Each bank should establish a mechanism for
submitting complaints by borrowers in connection
with the recovery process have been addressed.

4. Banks are asked to ensure that contracts with recovery agents do not
Encourage the adoption of uncivilized behavior,
questionable or illegal and the process of recovery.

5. Banks are obliged tostrictly in accordance with the
codes for the collection of contributions.
Guided by the draft guidelines issued by banks,
participants said recovery agents, banks, borrower
s the details of a recovery agent for the purpose of
document information, when sending files to the standard –
the debt collectors.

The Reserve Bank of India has also
introduced a temporary ban (or even a permanent ban
in case of persistent abusive practices) for the recording
of recovery agents of banks, which were sanctionedby
a High Court / Supreme Court imposed or pursued
against directors and officers against abusive practices
by their recovery agents.

An operational circular in this regard was signed November 15, 2007 issued.

Other laws 

Furthermore, the bank debt of activities
of collection is not the responsibility of the
regulator. There are no documents of any
licensing or regulatory authorities for further
collection in India will be achieved.

The existing guidelines for banksare inadequate
because they are too focused on the problem of
harassment of debtors and rules do not regulate
the sector as such. The government is aware of
the need is to become a special legal mechanism
for recovery of debt a big problem for the banking
sector as a whole.

Each bank has with the non-payment of bills
which are not known to the termination of accounts
(NPA) in the language of Bank of India.

The problem has grown enormously andthreatens
the economy. The establishment of courts for
recovery of debt in 1993 was a first step to facilitate
rapid recovery of the banks.

The intention behind the creation of this tribunal
is to ensure that the banking sector has its own
healing mechanism, which is part of the legal system,
but at the same time, the banking sector out.

Bank debt of more than $ 22,727 could be recovered through the courts.

However, for a while, he realized thatThis
new mechanism has the desired result because
the recovery is still slow and the cut due to the
workload, became the Court, like any other court.

The purpose of rejection of a track was fast and effective recovery.
Bank debt remains a serious problem to solve, because they
affect the entire economy. The government felt the need for a
mechanism that a small part from the judge, to make
recoverythe legal system could be reformed overnight.
So, rather than the reform of the judicial process
did not think the government, intelligent and has a
law that the court hearing and the power of banks
to propose minimizes the special powers that the
rate of recovery could be affected.
The government has found a new law Scrutinizer
and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement
of interest to the Security Act of 2002 (Act SARFAESI),
where, as banksallows security by the borrower was to
liquidate, collect its receivables.

This law also paved the way for the creation of enterprises
in the reconstruction of the debtor's assets include the safety
again. These organisms are therefore another form of
debt collection agencies, debt, have institutionalized.

The need for exchange of information between the
banking sector was also felt in order for the industry
for the good of others. How Credit Information
Company(Regulation) Act was adopted in 2005.
INDIAN law and the process of collection

The Indian legal system is to ensure absolutely fair and
equitable for the party. There are legal means to collect
debts if the debtor agrees to pay under normal conditions.
To sue the creditor for his recovery.

The bad debts written contract could be recovered
under an accelerated pace. If the debtor is a company
and its creditorsLawyers can the 'Company Court apply
to the liquidation of the company for failure to pay a
substantial amount of debt. A summary trial is another matter.
The process will take time, from May to 1 to 2 years.

The test is properly recorded and produced in court if necessary.
There is also the agreement of the complaint must be filed no later than.

U.S. OUTSOURCING OUTLOOK 

India has attracted many technology jobs in recent years
by Western countries, particularly the United States.
Now,about to become a center in another area of
outsourcing – debt. According to the report, industry,
units of General Electric, Citigroup used, HSBC Holdings
and American Express, its India-based staff to pursue  
the debt and credit cards by calling the non-paying
the mortgage.

Debt collection agency of the United States are the
most recent to start your job outsourcing in India
and with the results of experts trained very satisfied,
but persistent India.After the sale of debt insurance
and credit card is a growing business for outsourcing
companies at a time of economic slowdown in the
United States as consumers struggle to pay for their purchases.

The recovery is of vital importance, and economic
growth in the United States. There are over 2.5 billion
dollars in consumer debt. Consequently, the library
industry for more than a third of a billion contacts with
consumers each year. Recently this year, more than
39.3 millionBillion debt was issued to the creditors.


The Indians have the advantage that the wages and
other costs, significantly reducing the costs of debt recovery.
Recovery agents in India costs only one quarter of the price
of their American and European counterparts, and are often
better the task. Many of these services from Indian companies
24 hours. Business India collection of debts under the
strict rules on the activities of America and / or European markets.

ABSTRACT 

India has along path through a collection service in the field
of aging. The collection activities must be regulated and
legal powers to be an effective instrument. There is already
an awareness in the country that recovery depends on the
court an inefficient method of collection.

Creation of active reconstruction and securitization
businesses SARFARESI under the law is a step in
the right direction to locate the recovery of debts, as
an independent and specializedFeature.

Although some progress has been made in bank
debt, but much of the debt is not a bank professionally
managed and regulated third party provider of access
to the library. N. bank debts were largely unsecured,
which makes it even more difficult.

There are big companies and business
houses are in a recovery agents are interested in,
without an appeal for the safety of high-value goods.
Lawyers can fill this gap by debt recovery servicesno
bank debt. Indian law does not allow contingency fees,
which makes the business less profitable.

India is ready to take advantage of foreign experience
to take the know-how and ideas to create a viable
and to increase its pace to the overall situation.
This requirement is now internationally because
of its global ambitions of India, that India should
feel recognized methods and models.

The multinationals have a standard operating
system for smooth transactions.
Actual debtEuropean industry to make
the trust only in companies that do business
with Indian companies.

Library professionals are required to
have an efficient system that reduces
reliance on a court with the support of the rest.