Skip to main content

Guidelines on Wilful Defaulters – Clarification regarding Guarantor, Lender and Unit

___________RESERVE BANK OF INDIA_____________
www.rbi.org.in
RBI/2014-15/221
DBOD.No.CID.41/20.16.003/2014-15                                      September 9, 2014

All Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs and LABs) and
All India Notified Financial Institutions (FIs)

Department of Banking Operations and Development, Central Office, 13th Floor, Central Office Building, S. Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai - 400 001

Dear Sir/ Madam

Guidelines on Wilful Defaulters –
Clarification regarding Guarantor, Lender and Unit

Please refer to the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters DBOD.No.CID.BC.3/20.16.003/2014-15 dated July 1, 2014.

2. Paragraph 2.1 of the circular lists out various events when a “wilful default” would be deemed to have occurred. In view of references received from a few banks regarding scope/definition of “wilful default”, it is clarified as follows:

a) The term ‘lender’ appearing in the circular covers all banks/FIs to which any amount is due, provided it is arising on account of any banking transaction, including off balance sheet transactions such as derivatives, guarantee and Letter of Credit.

b) The term ‘unit’ appearing therein has to be taken to include individuals, juristic persons and all other forms of business enterprises, whether incorporated or not. In case of business enterprises (other than companies), banks/FIs may also report (in the Director column) the names of those persons who are in charge and responsible for the management of the affairs of the business enterprise.

3. Paragraph 2.6 of the circular is amended to read as follows:
“While dealing with wilful default of a single borrowing company in a Group, the banks /FIs should consider the track record of the individual company, with referenceto its repayment performance to its lenders. However, in cases where guarantees furnished by the companies within the Group on behalf of the wilfully defaulting units are not honoured when invoked by the banks /FIs, such Group companies should also be reckoned as wilful defaulters”.

4. In connection with the guarantors, banks have raised queries regarding inclusion of names of guarantors who are either individuals (not being directors of the company) or non-group corporates in the list of wilful defaulters. It is advised that in terms of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the liability of the surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. Therefore, when a default is made in making repayment by the principal debtor, the banker will be able to proceed against the guarantor/surety even without exhausting the remedies against the principal debtor. As such, where a banker has made a claim on the guarantor on account of the default made by the principal debtor, the liability of the guarantor is immediate. In case the said guarantor refuses to comply with the demand made by the creditor/banker, despite having sufficient means to make payment of the dues, such guarantor would also be treated as a wilful defaulter. I is clarified that this would apply only prospectively and not to cases where guarantees were taken prior to this circular. Banks/FIs may ensure that this position is made known to all prospective guarantors at the time of accepting guarantees.
5. Banks/FIs may take due care to follow the provisions set out in paragraph 3 of the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated July 1, 2014 in identifying and reporting instances of wilful default in respect of guarantors also. While reporting such names to RBI, banks/FIs may include “Guar” in brackets i.e. (Guar) against the name of the guarantor and report the same in the Director column.

6. This circular is issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
Yours faithfully
(A K Pandey)

Chief General Manager

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more