Skip to main content

Non-Cooperative Borrowers

RBI/2014-15/362
DBR.No.CID.BC.54/20.16.064/2014-15
December 22, 2014
All Scheduled Commercial Banks
(Excluding RRBs)
All-India Term-Lending and Refinancing Institutions
(Exim Bank, NABARD, NHB and SIDBI)
Dear Sir / Madam

Non-Cooperative Borrowers

Please refer to our circular DBOD.BP.BC.No.97/21.04.132/2013-14 dated February 26, 2014 on ‘Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy - Guidelines on Joint Lenders' Forum (JLF) and Corrective Action Plan (CAP)’ which inter-alia, provides for specific prudential measures and reporting requirements in respect of Non-Cooperative Borrowers. The definition of a Non-Cooperative Borrower as contained therein is hereby modified to read as under:

A non-cooperative borrower is one who does not engage constructively with his lender by defaulting in timely repayment of dues while having ability to pay, thwarting lenders’ efforts for recovery of their dues by not providing necessary information sought, denying access to assets financed / collateral securities, obstructing sale of securities, etc. In effect, a non-cooperative borrower is a defaulter who deliberately stone walls legitimate efforts of the lenders to recover their dues.

2. In this connection, we advise that banks/FIs should take the following measures in classifying/declassifying a borrower as non-cooperative borrower and reporting information on such borrowers to Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC):
  1. The cut off limit for classifying borrowers as non-cooperative would be those borrowers having aggregate fund-based and non-fund based facilities of Rs.50 million from the concerned bank/FI. A non-cooperative borrower in case of a company will include, besides the company, its promoters and directors (excluding independent directors and directors nominated by the Government and the lending institutions). In case of business enterprises (other than companies), non-cooperative borrowers would include persons who are in-charge and responsible for the management of the affairs of the business enterprise.
  2. It would be imperative on the part of the banks / FIs to put in place a transparent mechanism for classifying borrowers as non-cooperative. A solitary or isolated instance should not be the basis for such classification. The decision to classify the borrower as non-cooperative borrower should be entrusted to a Committee of higher functionaries headed by an Executive Director and consisting of two other senior officers of the rank of General Managers/ Deputy General Managers as decided by the Board of the concerned bank/FI.
  3. If the Committee concludes that the borrower is non-cooperative, it shall issue a Show Cause Notice to the concerned borrower (and the promoter/whole-time directors in case of companies) and call for his submission and after considering his submission issue an order recording the borrower to be non-cooperative and the reasons for the same. An opportunity should be given to the borrower for a personal hearing if the Committee feels such an opportunity is necessary.
  4. The order of the Committee should be reviewed by another Committee headed by the Chairman / CEO and MD and consisting, in addition, of two independent directors of the Bank/FI and the order shall become final only after it is confirmed by the said Review Committee.
  5. Banks/FIs will be required to report information on their non-cooperative borrowers to CRILC under CRILC-Main (Quarterly Submission) return as advised vide circular DBS.OSMOS.No.14703/33.01.001/2013-14 dated May 22, 2014 on ‘Reporting to Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC)’. As mentioned in this circular, the quarterly CRILC Main report is required to be submitted within 21 days from the close of the relevant quarter.
  6. Boards of banks/FIs should review on a half-yearly basis the status of non-cooperative borrowers for deciding whether their names can be declassified as evidenced by their return to credit discipline and cooperative dealings. Removal of names from the list of non-cooperative borrowers should be separately reported under CRILC with adequate reasoning/rationale for such removal.
  7. If any particular entity as mentioned in (a) above is reported as non-cooperative, any fresh exposure to such a borrower will by implication entail greater risk necessitating higher provisioning. Banks/FIs will therefore be required to make higher provisioning as applicable to substandard assets in respect of new loans sanctioned to such borrowers as also new loans sanctioned to any other company that has on its board of directors any of the whole time directors/promoters of a non-cooperative borrowing company or any firm in which such a non-cooperative borrower is in charge of management of the affairs. However, for the purpose of asset classification and income recognition, the new loans would be treated as standard assets. This supersedes the instructions contained at paragraph 8.1(b) of the aforementioned circular dated February 26, 2014.
  8. It is reiterated that as the CRILC data is collected under the provisions of the RBI Act, non-adherence to reporting instructions attracts penal provisions under the Act.
Yours faithfully
(A.K. Pandey)
Chief General Manager

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more