Skip to main content

RBI to solely decide which loan is an NPA - Gujarat HC

Gujarat High Court rules Sarfaesi Act amendment unconstitutional, clips powers of other regulators of NPA classification

The Reserve Bank of India has now become the sole regulator of borrowing and lending in the country.

The Gujarat High Court in a ruling on Thursday took away powers to determine whether asset is NPA or not and the period of non-payment that would make an asset NPA from all regulators except the RBI.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya has ruled that a 2005 amendment to in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests (Sarfaesi) Act, 2002 was illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the object of the Act.

The amendment which defines NPA under section 2(1)(O) classified different institutions (60 in total) under two groups – those under the purview of the RBI and those regulated by other agencies. A petition moved by a borrower through advocate Vishwas Shah and Masoom Shah had challenged the amendment.

The court observed that for the purpose of enforcing a statute like the Securitisation Act, which deviates from the ordinary laws of the land relating to attachment, sale and recovery of possession of the secured asset, the fate of a borrower cannot be left in the hands of the regulators of those financiers.

With the judgment, RBI can determine classification of NPAs by banks and various types of financial institutions – NBFCs, LIC, state finance companies among others.

At present, banks classify a borrower's (consumer or corporate) account as NPA after continuous non-payment of principal and interest for 90 days and make necessary provision for the same.

However, NBFC, state finance companies (SFCs promoted by state governments) and other companies get a different period to determine whether the asset is NPA or not.

Certain housing finance companies, SFCs and companies like Power Finance Corporation are not under the regulation of RBI for NPA classification, they are governed by respective laws and regulators.

Meanwhile, the High Court in the same judgment has rejected the argument of the petitioner that para 2.1 of the guidelines of the RBI that classify various number of days for various types of banks and financial institutions.

The petitioner has prayed that all borrowers should be treated equally and one should not get less number of days compared with other borrower of NBFC. The court has ruled that the guidelines were dealt with in the 2004 judgment of the apex court.

Before the amendment the Act, RBI was the regulator for the banking, non-banking institutions and securitization agencies for deciding the period after which the loans can be treated as NPA. Till 2004, RBI had set the NPA period for banks at 90 days, and at 180 days for NBFCs.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-now-rbi-to-solely-decide-which-loan-is-an-npa-1981824


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more