Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Banks – Display of Names of Nodal Officers











RBI/2011-12/426
DBOD.No. Leg.BC.83/ 09.07.005/2011-12


March 5, 2012


All Scheduled Commercial Banks
(excluding RRBs)


Dear Sir


Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Banks –
Display of Names of Nodal Officers


Please refer to our Circular DBOD.No.Leg.BC.24 /09.07.005/2009-10 dated July  21, 2009 wherein banks were, inter alia, advised to display the names and other details of the officials at their Head Office / Zonal Offices / Regional Offices  including the names of the Nodal Officers / Principal Nodal Officers appointed  under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 on their web-sites who can be contacted for redressal of complaints. Banks were also advised to display the names, addresses, telephone numbers and fax numbers of their CMD / CEO, Line Functioning Heads for operations such as, Credit Cards, Loans and Advances, Retail Banking, Personal Banking, Rural / Agricultural Banking, SME Banking, etc on their web-sites to enable their customers to approach them, if necessary.


2. With a view to making the Grievance Redressal Mechanism more effective, in addition to the instructions contained in the above mentioned circular, banks are further advised as under:


Ensure that the Principal Nodal Officer appointed under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme is of a sufficiently senior level, not below the rank of a General Manager.


Contact details including name, complete address, telephone / fax number, email address, etc., of the Principal Nodal Officer needs to  be prominently displayed in the portal of the bank preferably on the first page of the web-site so that the aggrieved customer can  approach the bank with a sense of satisfaction that she / he has been attended at a senior level.


Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM) should be made simpler even if it is linked to call centre of customer care unit without customers facing hassles of proving identity, account details, etc.


Adequate and wider publicity are also required to be given by the respective financial services provider.


3.  The name and address of the Principal Nodal Officer may also be forwarded  to the  Chief General Manager, Customer Service Department, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, 1st Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M.Road, Mumbai-400 001 (email).


Yours faithfully,


(Deepak Singhal)
Chief General Manager-in-Charge

Quotes Gems on Determination




"The difference between the impossible and


 the possible lies in a person's determination." 








             -    Tommy Lasorda 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Contempt of Supreme Court Judgment by Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunals





To,                                                                                               5-3-2012
 Hon Chief Justice of India
 Supreme Court of India
 New Delhi- 110 001



Respected Hon Chief Justice of India,


Sub:  Contempt of Supreme Court Judgment by Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunals



Whereas legislature has enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (Hereinafter referred to as RDDBFI Act) and the Bill seeks to provide for the establishment of Tribunal and Appellate Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.. Under the said RDDBFI Act, Debt Recovery Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as DRT) have been established.

Whereas all the Tribunals where under the administrative control and supervision of their respective departments and concerned Ministries.

Whereas the Question of Judicial Independence, appointments, safety of tenure, termination, funding for salaries, benefits and facilities was sought to be clarified by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon Supreme Court of India.  The said questions were answered by the Constitutional Bench of Hon Supreme Court of India in Union of India, Madras Bar Association vs R.Gandhi, President  Madras Br Association and Union of India ( 2010 INDLAW SC 405).

 Whereas to prevent the appearance of partiality and to separate Judiciary from Executive branch in the conduct of Judicial Proceedings and decisions in the Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, the Hon Supreme Court decided to give Judicial Freedom by ordering the transfer of all Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals to Ministry of Law & Justice.

Whereas the Hon Supreme Court made the following among other orders : Para 56(ix) ……..the selection Committee should broadly be on the following lines: (a) Chief Justice of India or his nominee- Chairperson(with a casting vote); (b) A senior Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of High Court-Member; (c) Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and company Affairs-Member; and (d) Secretary in the ministry of law and justice- Member.  Para 56 (xiii)…The Administrative support for all Tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law & Justice. Neither the Tribunals nor its members shall seek or be provided with facilities from the respective sponsoring or parent Ministries or concerned Department.(emphasized)

In gross contempt of Hon Supreme Court Constitutional Bench directives, Officials of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) continue to draw their salaries, benefits, perks from Ministry of Finance.  Allegedly some Banks have even provided Office space and staff to the said Debt Recovery Tribunals along with cars, drivers etc. The Banks are one of the parties in all the cases adjudicated by the said tribunals. This is nothing but illegal benefit being given by banks to officials of Debt Recovery Tribunals.

Whereas Ministry of Finance has transferred Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to Ministry of Law & Justice in obedience of the Supreme Court directives, the strong Banking Lobby is prevailing on Ministry of Finance to use delay tactics for nearly two years to defeat the Hon Supreme court directive for transfer of DRT to Ministry of Law & Justice.

Whereas the DRT proceedings, attire, environment of DRT has been created to give the impression of adjudication by unbiased courts the said officials are cheating the borrowers by functioning unconstitutionally and by their disobedience of Hon Supreme Court directives to separate Executive from Judiciary and not to seek any administrative support from parent ministry which is Ministry of Finance in this case.

Borrowers are not getting fair hearing and adjudication from the said Hon DRT which does not have Judicial freedom to adjudicate cases in an impartial manner without fear or favor as guaranteed by Constitution.

Borrowers Rights Forum prays for implementation of Hon Supreme Court Judgment and immediate transfer of DRT to Ministry of Law and Justice and to initiate contempt proceedings against DRT Officials for failing to comply with Constitutional Bench decision of Hon Supreme Court of India.

Most obediently,


Dr C Suresh
Secretary
Borrowers Rights Forum
Saumya Nagar, NH 5
Tadepalli- 522501
A.P.

Friday, March 2, 2012

What it is ? Non-performing assets








Livemint:Vivina Vishwanathan:Thu, Mar 1 2012. 8:57 PM 




A majority of government-owned banks have seen a steep rise in non-performing assets (NPA) in the last couple of quarters. Let us look at what exactly NPA is and how does it affect you as a bank customer.



What is it?

For a bank, assets are loans that it gives to individuals and companies and gets regular income from it in the form of interest. When these assets stop generating regular cash flow (or become non-performing), they are known as NPAs.

How is it classified?

If a loan instalment is not paid for three months or 90 days, it is considered as an NPA. For example, if you have taken an education loan and have been unable to repay the interest or the principal amount for three months, the bank from where you have taken this loan will record it in its books as NPA. If an asset remains non-performing for a period less than or equal to 12 months, it would be classified as a sub-standard asset. These assets attract a provisioning, the money that a bank should set aside to cover potential losses, of 15%. If an asset remains in the sub-standard category for 12 months, it would be considered a doubtful asset with 25-100% provisioning. When an asset is identified uncollectable then it is a loss asset which calls for 100% provisioning.



When do NPAs rise?


To tame inflation, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has tightened the monetary policy 13 times since March 2010. When RBI increases its key policy rates, the banks raise lending rates or an increase loan tenor is possible. Soaring inflation and rising rates have seen the monthly budgets of many households go upside down. This has an immediate impact on the equated monthly instalments (EMIs). When many borrowers default, especially the ones with large credit dues, a bank’s profitability is hit. It needs to be noted here that a majority of NPAs for banks come from small and medium enterprises and companies.



What does it mean for you?


If you default and your loan turns into an NPA, the bank will try to recover as much as possible from you. For this, banks usually outsource recovery work to third-party debt recovery companies. Banks are also allowed to acquire assets if the borrower fails to repay. Further, non-repayment can affect your credit score and taking more loans may become a problem for you.


Chaudhuri's crown of thorns




BS :Joydeep Ghosh & Abhijit Lele / Mumbai Mar 02, 2012, 00:10 IST


Worst quarter in a decade, fund crunch, Moody's downgrade and messy NPAs... he has had little to cheer about



Unlike his predecessor, Pratip Chaudhuri speaks almost in a monotone. But that’s understandable, considering the State Bank of India (SBI) chairman has had little to crow about — and that’s not just because of the economy.

Last week’s battering of the country’s largest bank’s stock, by over eight per cent, on news reports that it was extending additional loans of Rs 1,600 crore to beleaguered Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) was just the latest example of the stress he has been going through. 

Bank officials admit to hundreds of calls from irate investors. Chaudhuri came out strongly on that day and repeatedly in the coming days that the bank was not going to provide further loans.



There have been many such instances where Chaudhuri’s firefighting abilities have been tested in his less than a year’s stint.


Even his competitors admire him for this. 

A chairman of a large sector bank hit the nail on the head: “He is not a person to make ‘big bang’ statements. He is not given to gimmicks. But in situations, which warrant strong stand like buzz to support Vijay Mallaya-controlled KFA, he has taken things head on by declaring it as an NPA (non-performing asset) in public.”



Many, on the other hand, question his public stand that the bank will not provide further loans to the ailing airline.

 “Given the political pressure, he might find it tough to continue with the same stand. In fact, he may have to eat his words,” said a chief financial officer of another public sector bank.
Full Year Ended
 Total
Income
Net
Profit
Net Interest
Margin (%)
2006-0744,648.314,541.31-
2007-0858,348.746,729.12-
2008-0976,482.749,121.232.93
2009-1085,962.079,166.052.66
2010-1197,218.968,264.523.32
Last three quarters
2011 Jun27,731.671,583.553.62
2011 Sep29,394.322,810.433.79
2011 Dec29,787.373,263.044.05
Source: BSRB
But KFA is least of Chaudhuri’s problems. He has had to face many more since taking over. 

His predecessor Om Prakash Bhatt’s ‘teaser home loans’ (SBI preferred to call those special loans) had increased his home loan portfolio to over Rs 80,000 crore, but it had also earned the wrath of the regulator, the Reserve Bank of India.

So, the new chairman’s first job was to mend ties with the Mint Street. So, ‘teaser rates’ went out and lending rates were increased aggressively. 

Like a senior bank official said, “There could be difference in opinion, but you can’t be at loggerheads with the regulator all the time.”

His first-quarter results in March 2011 were a disaster — a 99 per cent drop in profits, the worst in a decade.

 Not that his predecessors had not taken any hit on their books. Both Bhatt and A K Purwar took knocks of 35 per cent and 28 per cent, respectively, on their balance sheets in their very first quarter — the argument being that SBI chairmen prefer to start with a clean slate.

But his problems were escalated by the under provisioning for employee gratuity and retirement benefits in the first three quarters. This led to a jump in the tax burden in the fourth quarter, when a big chunk of provisioning was done at one go. 

In addition, provisioning for teaser loans also had to be made. Though SBI sought to amortise this burden over time, RBI refused to let it do so. “So, we had to dip into our reserves, which caused the damage,” said a senior bank official.

Dipping into the reserves meant SBI’s Tier-I capital fell to 7.71 per cent, below the government-stipulated eight per cent. 
The infusion of Rs 8,000 crore as equity by March-end is expected to make things more comfortable.

However, experts point out even this relief may be for a short-term. Internal accruals from profits will remain under pressure against the backdrop of a huge portfolio of bad and restructured loans. 

The number of cases going into corporate debt restructuring (CDR) has been on the rise. In addition, the proposed stringent Basel-III norms for capital will make things more difficult.

According to a banking analyst, “Given that the government is under pressure on the revenue front, its limited capital infusion — the requirement was of Rs 20,000 crore to fund growth plans for the next two years — is an attempt to buy time rather than a decision based on assessment of long-term needs.”

Besides fund crunch, Chaudhuri has been facing challenges on many other fronts. 

There have been times when he has found himself on the wrong side of the finance ministry. 

For instance, when Moody's downgraded the bank, he did not criticise it. Instead, he said the ratings agency was simply just doing its job. This did not go down well with the finance ministry, which was quick to rubbish the report. It even called the agency for an explanation.

And then, there has been Kingfisher, Air India and many such high-profile cases, which have gone into CDR. 

With SBI being the lead banker in many cases, it has borne the brunt of every bad news. 

Gross NPAs have risen sharply, from Rs 25,000 crore to Rs 40,000 crore, in the last nine months.

 No wonder, the SBI stock has lost almost 33 per cent in the last one year.

Things on this front may continue to be challenging because more companies, especially in the power and infrastructure sectors, are expected to opt for restructuring. 

The standard restructured asset book already stands at Rs 37,610 crore, up by about Rs 3000 crore in the first nine months.

In Chaudhuri’s defence, he inherited a bank which was aggressive, sometimes unduly so even in the eyes of the regulator.

 Bhatt’s style of ‘making the elephant dance’ had him in the covers of magazines and newspapers. But this aggression also saw a sharp rise in gross NPAs, almost 66 per cent in the last two years of his stint, according to bank officials.

SBI, under Bhatt, wanted a global approach. As a result, aggression was important for success. Chaudhuri, perhaps, is paying for it.

While grappling with stressed assets, the bank has also reined in some of its inefficiencies. 

For example, the position of deputy general manager of branch circles had been removed in the last few years, resulting in tremendous pressure on general managers, as some zones have over 500 branches. This position has been restored.

Similarly, he has continued with his predecessor’s legacy of expanding retail business — deposits and loans. Outstanding home loans have grown by about Rs 13,000 crore to cross Rs 1 lakh crore.

The educational loan portfolio has grown by Rs 1,400 crore to Rs 12,042 crore. The auto loan portfolio has shrunk by over Rs 3,000 crore to Rs 17,409 crore. The latter is more a function of market conditions.

The numbers have improved in spite of trying conditions. That is, the share of current account and savings account (CASA) continues to be strong at 47 per cent of total deposits, an improvement of 150 basis points over the last nine months. Net interest margins have also increased from 3.32 in 2010-11 to 3.82 as on December.

Most importantly, given the fund situation, the bank has cancelled all unused credit lines and released choked-up capital. Now, only the sanctioned limit is set aside.

It’s been a tough year for Chaudhuri. Words of comfort come from the public sector bank chairman: “In the past year, Chaudhuri was engaged in balance sheet clean-up. From next financial year, he would get room to grow with focus and build his own legacy.” 

Everyone will be watching him closely.




IndusInd Bank can claim Rs.185 cr from SHCIL, says SC



Joel Rebello, joel.r@live:Livemint:: Fri, Mar 2 2012. 1:00 AM 

The ghost of the 2001 Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE) payment crisis is threatening to burn aRs.185 crore hole in the balance sheet of Stock Holding Corp. of India Ltd (SHCIL).

A decade-old legal battle took another turn on Thursday with the Supreme Court telling SHCIL that it would hear the dispute, but wouldn’t restrain the private bank from seizing its properties if SHCIL does not pay up by 6 March. SHCIL moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on a Calcutta high court order that directed SHCIL and a stockbroker to pay up.

Founded jointly by financial institutions such as the erstwhile Unit Trust of India, Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd (now IDBI Bank Ltd), Life Insurance Corp. of India and General Insurance Corp. of India, SHCIL used to offer custodial services to stock market investors. In the early 2000s, its key clients were large stockbrokers.

SHCIL has been facing a claim of around Rs.185 crore from IndusInd Bank Ltd for dishonouring three cheques that the custodian had issued in early 2001 to stockbroker Harish Biyani. The bank discounted the cheques issued to Biyani—one of the key accused in the 2001 payment crisis at CSE—but SHCIL eventually didn’t honour them.

Failing to recover the Rs.24.4 crore it paid to Biyani discounting the post-dated cheques, IndusInd Bank moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Kolkata in 2001 seeking attachment of SHCIL’s properties and investments, along with those of Biyani.

The bank’s claim, which over the years has swelled to Rs.185 crore with interest, was upheld by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Calcutta high court. Initially, though, the DRT had ruled against the bank.

Late last year, the Calcutta high court ordered SHCIL and Biyani to pay up by 6 March; if they couldn’t, IndusInd Bank was allowed to attach their properties and investments.

SHCIL moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the Calcutta high court order, but the apex court didn’t oblige—it said on Thursday that it would hear the dispute, but wouldn’t restrain the bank from attaching properties if Biyani and SHCIL didn’t pay up by 6 March.

“I will fight this case till I die,” said Ashok Motwani, SHCIL’s managing director and chief executive officer. “This is certainly not the end of the dispute.”

Meanwhile, IndusInd Bank expects SHCIL to pay up, according to a key official, who did not want to be named. “Our aim is to only recover what they (SHCIL and Biyani) owe us,” said this bank official. “SHCIL is a large organization and I don’t think it will force us to attach its properties.”

IndusInd Bank has fully provided for the loss on account of discounting of cheques and whatever it recovers from SHCIL and Biyani will be written back to its profits. The amount it has claimed is quite substantial—it is almost as much as its quarterly profit. Its net profit in the quarter to December wasRs.206 crore.

For SHCIL, the financial implications of the dispute are bigger. In fiscal 2011, its net profit was at Rs.64 crore, down from Rs.284 crore in the previous year. In 2009-10, SHCIL’s profit was higher because of one-off income amounting toRs.295 crore from the sale of a part of its stake in the National Stock Exchange.

IndusInd Bank holds SHCIL and Biyani “jointly and severally” responsible to pay Rs.185 crore, but “it is most likely” that it will train its guns on SHCIL for recovery.

“For Biyani, the 2001 payment crisis was a huge setback,” said a former CSE official, who did not want to be identified. “I don’t think IndusInd Bank expects to recover much from him.”

Biyani wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Biyani used the money drawn from IndusInd Bank to pare his “exposure”, for financial liability, with SHCIL, according to the former CSE official, who was among those who had investigated the crisis for the exchange.

In those days, SHCIL used to make cash advances to stockbrokers under various schemes—it used to offer variants of so-called payday loans that are small, short-term loans extended against the borrower’s next earnings.

IndusInd had initially refused to discount the three cheques that Biyani presented, but did so after SHCIL issued a letter saying that it wouldn’t in any event dishonour the cheques, this person added.
SHCIL, however, later said that the three cheques were issued under a cash on payout scheme and it was made clear to the bank that it wouldn’t honour them if Biyani didn’t receive money from CSE.

The exchange expunged Biyani’s trades in shares of DSQ Industries Ltd, describing them as collusive and intended to artificially shore up the price of the stock. He didn’t receive any money at the end of the settlement cycle for the shares of DSQ Industries which he had sold. This, SHCIL alleges, forced it to dishonour the cheques.

M/s.Vijaya Durga Auto & ors V/S City Union Bank ltd



A.IR:777/2010

IA 1360/10 (delay) :Ld. Counsel Shri K.A. Ramakrishnan appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew the attention of this Tribunal to the affidavit filed in support of the petition more particularly to paragraph 5 of the affidavit and stated that the reasons have been properly explained in the said paragraph and that it was only due to non furnishing of the copy of the order by the DRT, Vishakapatnam and due to the advocate of the petitioners becoming sick the petitioners could not file the appeal in time.  Ld. Counsel prayed that the delay of 419 days in filing this appeal may be condoned.

Ld. Counsel Shri R. Balachander appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that it can been seen that the petitioners’ counsel was aware of the final order being passed on 1.5.2009 and that the said counsel did not inform the passing of the final order to the petitioners.  

Ld. Counsel stated that it can further been seen that the petitioners had only enquired with his counsel after more than a year had elapsed and that this alone reflects that the petitioners were not in any way pursuing their case.  Ld. Counsel also stated that the delay has not at all been explained and that the petitioners blaming their counsel for not informing them and blaming  also the DRT, Vishakapatnam for not giving a copy of the final order and further stating that the very same counsel whom the petitioners are blaming became sick and could not travel to Chennai because of his sickness cannot be reasons for condoning the delay.  Ld. Counsel added that law requires each and every day of the delay to be explained and that in this case it can be seen that not even a single day of the 419 days of delay has been explained by the petitioners and prayed that this IA may be dismissed.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent bank.

It is seen that the petitioners firstly have blamed their counsel that he has failed to inform about the disposal of the case by the DRT, Vishakapatnam and secondly that the petitioners have blamed the DRT, Vishakapatnam for not furnishing a copy of the final order and thirdly that the petitioners have stated that the same counsel has become sick and could not travel to Chennai to file the appeal in time.  It is well established law that the delay attributed to the inaction on the part of the advocate can never be a reason for the condonation of delay.  

Further it can be seen that the petitioners have never cared to enquire about the status of their case for more than a year and when the petitioners themselves have not taken adequate steps to know the status of their case it can easily been said that the delay caused by their keeping quiet cannot be a reason for the condonation of delay.  

Therefore in view of the above it can be seen that the petitioners have not established that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of limitation and have also not explained the delay of 419 days that had occurred thereafter in filing the appeal.

Therefore this Tribunal is driven to conclude that the petitioners have not made out a  case for the condonation of 419 days delay and further driven to conclude that the petition is liable to be dismissed.  

Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

This judgement was delivered by the Honble chairperson of DRAT Chennai on 1st March 2012