Skip to main content

Depositors to get up to maximum of Rs 1 lakh if bank goes bust: HC

The Bombay high court has upheld the validity of the Rs1lakh rule that states that if a bank goes bust, its depositors will get up to a maximum of Rs 1 lakh from the banking insurance system. A division bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Mahesh Sonak dismissed petitions filed by a number of credit societies that had deposited over Rs 20 crore in the Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank, which was ordered to be wound up after the Reserve Bank of India cancelled its banking licence.

The high court bench pointed out that the scheme was framed to ensure security to small depositors — as of 2009, around 89% of the deposits in the banking system in India were less than Rs 1 lakh. "The purpose of the deposit insurance scheme is to afford some cover to small depositors by providing them with a safety net so that the entirety of their deposits are not wiped out, when the banks in which they are held, go into liquidation," said the judges. "The provisions of the (law), therefore, have to be construed, not in the context of any particular bank or particular fact situation, but rather from the context of protection afforded to numerous small depositors and the entire banking system in the country," they said.

Under law, all banks in the country are registered with the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICC). When a bank is ordered to be wound up the insurance indemnity scheme kicks in — all depositors who have deposits of less than Rs 1 lakh are given the exact amount of their deposits, while all depositors who have more than Rs 1 lakh in deposits in that bank get only Rs 1 lakh. The credit societies claimed that the insurance scheme covers the entire amount so the entire money lost by them has to be returned.

They claimed the provisions of the rules were wrongly interpreted and instead of treating each credit society as one unit, every investor in that credit society should be offered benefit of the insurance scheme. The credit societies also said that the classification was arbitrary and discriminatory as it treats depositors with Rs 1 lakh and less as different from those who have deposits of more than Rs 1 lakh.

The HC rejected these contentions and also ruled that the classification was justified and valid. It also pointed out that as opposed to a general insurance scheme, banks pay a meagre amount as premium under the scheme. Further, the DIGC cannot decline to offer cover to any bank registered with it.

The high court bench observed that the level of insurance cover in India works out to 2.2 times the per capita GDP of the country, when, in fact, the international benchmark in this regard is between 1 to 2 times the per capita GDP.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Depositors-to-get-up-to-maximum-of-Rs-1-lakh-if-bank-goes-bust-HC/articleshow/31308750.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more