RBI Reluctant to reveal the names of top 100 bank loan defaulter

Source :Anita Singh, TNN Dec 11, 2011, 05.14AM IST

PANIPAT: Reluctant to reveal the names of top 100 bank loan defaulter businessmen of the country, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking a stay on the orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

On November 15, CIC, while deciding a petition filed by local RTI activist P P Kapoor, had directed the RBI to provide him the names of defaulters by December 10 and upload these on the bank's website by December 31. In the petition, Kapoor had challenged the denial of information by the bank.

Kapoor had sought the details from the bank in August last year, but was denied on the grounds that RBI held these in 'judiciary capacity'.

However, the CIC directed the bank to post on its website complete information on all such industrialists as part of suo-motu disclosure mandated under Section 4 of the RTI Act before December 31 and asked it to update it every year.

The RBI had objected to making the information public, saying "it is held by it in fiduciary capacity and disclosing it will adversely affect economic interest of the state".

Information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi agreed that information was 'fiduciary in nature', but said that such exemption did not stand when there was larger public interest in the disclosure.

After his RTI query was dismissed by the RBI, Kapoor filed the petition with the Central Information Commission, which on October 12 summoned the public information officer of the RBI to appear before it on November 8 with all relevant documents. The commission held a hearing on the said date, but the verdict was withheld.

Kapoor said the information was sough by him in the larger public interest as revealing the names of the defaulters could force them to return the money of the public sector banks.

Mrs.Malliga V/S BOB

A.IR:954/2011

A 1472/11 (waiver);  Ld.  Counsel Shri Senthil Kumar appearing on behalf of the  petitioner stated that the respondent bank can claim only to the extent of the value of the secured asset and that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act only permit that.  

He further stated that the petitioner is a lady and that if this Tribunal imposes a condition of pre-deposit of a sum equivalent to 50% of the amount claimed by the bank the petitioner would be put to hardship and suffering. 

Ld.  Counsel added that  the amount for  the pre-deposit may be reckoned from the value of the secured asset and that the petitioner may be directed to deposit 25% of that value towards the pre-deposit.  Ld.  Counsel pleaded for sympathy and added that suitable orders may be passed.

Ld. Counsel Shri Manohar appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that the debt due to the respondent bank is Rs.20.73 crores and that the petitioner may be directed to deposit at least 50% of the said sum in order to meet out the requirement under Sec.18 of the SARFADSI Act.

Heard both sides.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case  the following order is passed.

“The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.5.18 crores into this Tribunal on or before 5.3.2012.  Call this IA on 6.3.2012 for verification of the compliance.  In the meanwhile there shall be an order of restraint upon the Authorised Officer from in any way proceeding any further under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in any manner till 6.3.2012.”

IA 1473/11 (stay); Call with IA 1472/11 on 6.3.2012.


The Chair Person of DRAT Chennai passed this order on 13th Dec 2011

M/s.Indian Bank V/S Mr.J.Paramanandam & ors

R.A:28/2011


OA 491 /1999 on the file of DRT - 1 chennai

Ld.  Counsel Shri Kasturi Rangan appearing on behalf of the first respondent stated that a sum of Rs.2 crores deposited by the first respondent’s son is lying in a Fixed Deposit with the Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai branch and that the first respondent’s son has given a letter to the bank for appropriation of the said sum towards the settlement of the dues of his father.  

The Ld. Counsel stated that this tribunal may act upon the letter and permit the bank to appropriate the said sum of Rs. 2 crores lying with the Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai branch as per the terms set out in the letter which includes the appropriation of the sum of Rs. 3 crores which is lying in deposit with the Alwarpet Branch of Indian Bank and which has been deposited by Shri A. Ramadas Rao. 

 The Ld.  Counsel added that the lis is long pending and that all the parties are desirous of settling the matter. The Ld.  Counsel requested that this Tribunal to pass orders permitting the bank to appropriate the sum of Rs. 2 crores lying with them as requested by the first respondent’s son.

Ld.  Counsel Ms. Vasudha Thiagarajan appears on behalf of Shri Ramadas Rao and stated that Shri Ramadas Rao is only interested in an amicable settlement and that he is also ready and willing to permit the bank to appropriate the sum of Rs. 3 crores deposited by him and lying with the Alwarpet branch of the Indian Bank provided the sum of Rs. 2 crores deposited by the first respondent’s son with the Indian Bank is appropriated first.

Heard the Ld.  Counsel.

It is seen that once the sum of Rs.2 crores lying with Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai Branch and the sum of Rs. 3 crores lying in the Alwarpet Branch of the Indian Bank are appropriated the first respondent would be liable to pay only a sum of Rs.1 crore for the settlement.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate if this Tribunal passes the following order:

“Indian Bank is permitted to appropriate the sum of Rs.2 crores deposited by the first respondent’s son lying in a Fixed Deposit with the Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai alongwith the accrued interest towards the settlement and immediately after the said sum of Rs. 2 crores is appropriated for the settlement of the loan account of the first respondent the bank is also permitted to appropriate the sum of Rs.3 crores lying deposited in the SB account of Shri A. Ramadas Rao in Alwarpet branch of Indian Bank towards the settlement”

Call on 9.1.2012 for further proceedings.

IA-290/2011 (Stay) – Call with RA on 9.1.2012.

IA-1461/2011(Implead Petition) – Call with RA on 9.1.2012.

The Chair Person of DRAT Chennai passed this order on 25th Nov 2011

Finance ministry pushes banks to fast-track bad loan recovery

source :12 DEC, 2011, 01.30AM IST, SANGITA MEHTA,ET BUREAU 


MUMBAI: The finance ministry is pushing capital-strapped public sector banks to hasten recovery of bad loans to improve health, and has promised to fill vacancies at debt recovery tribunals (DRT) across the nation, partly responsible for inordinate delays in ending disputes. 

"Needless to say that Rs2 lakh crore (of bad loans) are a drag on the capital of banks," a bureaucrat from the finance ministry wrote to bank chairmen recently. 

"All cases should be reviewed and... ensured that all cases pending above two years should be cleared by March 2012." Banks last year wrote off almost 10% of their gross bad loans as various recovery forums failed. 

Recovery through DRTs fell to 28% of the total referred cases in 2011, from 32% ayear earlier, data from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) shows. 

Under the SARFAESI Act, it was a little better at 38%, compared with 30% in the same period previous year. 

Bankers had complained to the finance ministry that the DRT mechanism was not functioning efficiently, which in turn was making it difficult for them to recover dues. They had said the tribunals lacked presiding officers and recovery officers.