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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

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...