Skip to main content

Reserve Bank of India tightens norms for errant borrowers

Even as bankers struggle to recover dues from errant borrowers, grappling with an inefficient legal system, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday put out a set of revised guidelines on how lenders should deal with ‘non-cooperative’ borrowers.

The modified definition of non-cooperative borrower, it would appear, is a lot similar to that of a ‘wilful defaulter’.The RBI has characterised a non-cooperative borrower as 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 and collateral securities, obstructing sale of securities”.

“In effect, a non-cooperative is a defaulter who deliberately stonewalls the efforts of lenders to recover their dues,” the central bank said on Monday, asking lenders to put in place a transparent mechanism for classifying borrowers as such.



The threshold exposure, per bank, for declaring a company as non-cooperative has been set at Rs 5 crore.

The central bank continues to allow lenders to take on fresh exposure to non-cooperative borrowers but at the cost of making higher provisions. Higher provisions are also required to be made against fresh loans given to even those companies managed by the any directors of the non-cooperative borrowing company.

“However, for the purpose of asset classification and income recognition, the new loans would be treated as standard assets,” the RBI said. The central bank bars lenders from taking on fresh exposure to wilful defaulters, bankers point out.

Earlier, in September, governor Raghuram Rajan had observed that non-cooperative borrowers were those that resisted repaying at every corner, holding up the process. “From a prudential perspective, they impose a cost to the system because banks cannot get their money using the existing laws such as Sarfaesi,” Rajan said.

Rajan has pointed out that the amounts “banks recover from defaulted debt is both meagre and long-delayed”. In FY14, Rs 30,590 crore was recovered via debt recovery tribunals while the outstanding value of debt sought to be recovered was Rs 2.36 lakh crore. Worse, Rajan added that while the law stipulates that cases before the DRT have to be disposed of in six months, only a fourth of cases meet this criteria, “suggesting a four-year wait even if the tribunals focus only on old cases”. According to RBI data, loans worth more than Rs 2 lakh crore were pending at 33 DRTs till FY14, up from Rs 1.43 lakh crore in FY13.

K Subramanyam, executive director at Union Bank of India, pointed out that the non-cooperative borrower would be like a precursor to a wilful defaulter tag.

“The wilful defaulter provision would be simultaneously used as these are two different types of borrowers,” Subramanyam explained.

By imposing the higher provisions, the central banks is discouraging banks from taking on additional exposure to errant borrowers, analysts said. Bankers have pointed out that the some borrowers delay the legal proceedings by continuously appealing for stays in the tribunals.

Banker’s efforts to recover dues from errant borrowers have been stymied by the courts. In September, the Gujarat High court had deemed the RBI’s wilful default guidelines as “unconstitutional” and had asked the RBI to modify the same. The court said the circular was in violation of the RBI Act or the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. “The circular that confers uncanalised, unbridled and untrammelled power upon the banks to decide the future of any borrower and makes the bank a judge in its own cause and also the decision whether the other banks should lend money to the borrower declared as a wilful defaulter,” the court had said in its judgement. Following the court order, Rajan said that the central bank would alter the definition of a wilful defaulter to accommodate the concerns of the court.

Article referred: http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/reserve-bank-of-india-tightens-norms-for-errant-borrowers/22198/

Comments

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...