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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more