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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more