SC declines to entertain plea seeking guidelines to tackle rising NPAs in banking sector, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


New Delhi [India], October 7 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a plea filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy seeking direction to frame guidelines to deal with the ever-increasing Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in the banking sector.

The Apex Court disposed of the plea and told Swamy that it’s a policy matter to be decided by the government and Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

The Court allowed Swamy to make representation before the RBI. (ANI)

Follow and connect with us on , Facebook, Linkedin



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

SC bench, which subjected banks to RTI, to hear fresh objections, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered listing of a bunch of petitions by mega banks including SBI and HDFC questioning a court mandate to provide customer and commercial information to RTI querists to a bench headed by Justice L N Rao, which had ruled that the RBI was bound to provide information sought about operations of banks under RTI.

Agreeing with advocate Prashant Bhushan, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari ordered that since a bench headed by Justice Rao had dealt with the issue at length and returned a verdict, it would be in the fitness of things to list the fresh pleas by the banks before the same bench.

The leading banks have moved the SC questioning the efficacy of subjecting them to RTI and said, “banking operations and the financial transactions, including the details of individual accounts, are held in confidence by the banks and that the SC judgment would seriously jeopardise the confidential clauses applicable to the banking operations under various statutes.”

On April 29 this year, a bench headed by Justice L N Rao had dismissed applications by major banks, including SBI and HDFC, for recalling the SC’s six-year-old judgment directing the banking regulator RBI to provide information under RTI about functioning of banks under the Act. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and K V Vishwanathan had argued –

“How can the bank breach the trust and faith of the account holder just because a RTI activist desires to know what another person’s bank balance is, or what credit lines he has sought for his business empire for a confidential future venture? No one is against transparency in banking operations.

But, why should the banks, mandated by statute to maintain confidentiality, reveal information in breach of account holders’ trust and reveal future business plans to rivals, who could get the information by employing an RTI activist’s services?”

“We know how and who would use the RTI to seek information about business rivals. If the banks reveal to which sector loans are being given, then there will be no commercial confidentiality for any future project envisioned by an industrial house. A nine-judge bench of the SC has ruled that individual privacy is a part of right to life. Should account holders in banks not enjoy privacy about their bank accounts,” they asked.

Bhushan strongly resisted the fresh move by banks to wriggle out of their obligations to provide information sought under RTI through the RBI.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

What if Future Group heads to bankruptcy court?, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Future group lenders are staring at legal proceedings following the SC ruling against its deal with Reliance Retail.

They have more to worry about as $14 million of coupons, falling due later this month, could be a trigger for some debt investors to suggest legal measure against the Future Group if the local retailer fails to meet its financial commitment to bondholders.

Bond investors, who own a minority portion of Future Group’s aggregate debt liability of Rs 21,000 crore, may be more eager than banks to initiate legal proceedings in the event of missed coupon payments after the last week’s Supreme Court order stalled a vital deal with Reliance Retail.

Banks, although unsure about the recovery prospects of the bulk of the Rs 21,000-crore of debt they own, fear that the payout could be lower through the insolvency mechanism.

The group has very little immovable property that can be sold. All its assets are in the form of inventory and receivables that are very difficult to recover. The Reliance-led plan is the best option right now because the recovery will be very low in the bankruptcy courts.

The restructuring

Local and overseas banks — 28 of them led by Bank of India — were counting on Reliance Retail’s takeover of the Future Group for recovery of their dues.

In April, the K V Kamath Committee set up by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) approved a proposal by the lenders to restructure loans to Future Retail and

Future Enterprises, the main units of the Kishore Biyani-led group. Bank of India is the lead lender among the 28 local and overseas financiers that floated the loan recast plan.

According to that deal, Future Group had promised to pay banks Rs 6,900 crore in two tranches by the end of FY22, mainly by selling its small-format stores.

This would allow lenders to convert the short-term loans, non-convertible debentures and overdue working capital loans into term loans, which were to be repaid in two years. The group has not yet identified any buyers for these stores.

Bankers had agreed on the deal as a temporary arrangement on expectations that the Reliance takeover will be completed soon, meaning the lenders would no longer depend upon Future to make the payments.

With this latest court order, all such plans will have to be reconsidered.

The group firms

Future Retail is the largest debtor in the group, with about Rs 10,000 crore of dues. Two other listed companies — Future Enterprises that holds its supply chain, and Future Lifestyle Fashions that houses apparel brands such as Central and Brand Factory — add another Rs 11,000 crore to the debt pile.

Lenders had agreed to an interest moratorium between March 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021. They had also agreed upon waiving all penal interest and charges, default premiums and processing fees unpaid since March 2020 to the date of the implementation of the Reliance Retail takeover.

There is some respite in the central bank’s extension of the timeframe for meeting the financial parameters for companies undergoing restructuring.

What CARE said

Future Enterprise’s liquidity profile has been severely impacted on account of lockdown measures and weakened credit profile of its key customer, Future Retail, CARE Ratings had said in April this year.

“The inability of FEL to realise its debtors during the pandemic and shut down operations during Q1 of FY21 led to a cash crunch, increase in debtor days and subsequently default on its debt service obligations. There have been substantial delays in receipt from group entities and subsequent receipts have not been significant,” CARE had said in April.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

SBI, HDFC Bank want RBI inspection reports kept under wraps, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


State Bank of India and HDFC Bank have opposed the Supreme Court order that had said the Reserve Bank of India can divulge inspection reports of commercial banks through Right To Information applications. The court has kept the hearing for Thursday. The RBI had allowed making such reports public following a Supreme Court order in 2015. Then, it was agreed that the entire report would not be made public, but the relevant portions on bad debts, and borrowers etc.

However, even such information can disclose much information about the borrowers, which violates various client confidentiality clauses of banks, the lenders argue.

The SC verdict in April

In a major blow to banks, the Supreme Court in April this year had refused to recall its 2015 judgment, which had held that the RBI will have to provide information about the banks and financial institutions (FIs) regulated by it under the transparency law.

Several FIs and banks, including the Canara Bank, the Bank of Baroda, the UCO Bank and the Kotak Mahindra Bank had filed applications in the top court seeking a recall of the 2015 judgment in the Jayantilal N Mistry case, saying the verdict had far-reaching consequences and moreover, they were directly and substantially affected by it.

The banks had contended that the pleas for a recall of the judgment, instead of a review, is “maintainable” as there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the fact that they were neither parties to the matter nor heard.

“A close scrutiny of the applications for a recall makes it clear that in substance, the applicants are seeking a review of the judgment in Jayantilal N Mistry. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these applications are not maintainable,” a bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran said.

The order, written by Justice Rao, said in the instant case, the dispute relates to information to be provided by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under the Right to Information Act (RTI) and though the information pertained to banks, it was the decision of the RBI that was in challenge and decided by this court.

The RBI stance

The RBI in 2019 has declined to share details of banks inspection reports citing a section of the transparency law that exempts public authority from disclosing information that may prejudicially affect sovereignty, security or economic interests of the country.

Replying to an RTI query, the central bank also said furnishing the requested information will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was asked to provide copies of all the annual financial inspection reports, concurrent audit or inspection reports carried out between 2007 and 2015 on foreign currency derivative contracts sold by the 19 banks that were earlier penalised by it.

“The requested information pertains to inspection reports of 19 banks for a period of eight years from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2015. Therefore the total number of reports would be 152 (one report per bank for 19 banks for eight years i.e. 152).

“Furnishing the requested information will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority,” the RBI said in reply to the RTI query filed by S Dhananjayan.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Banks explore the option of invoking personal guarantee of promoters, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


New Delhi: Armed with Supreme Court order, banks may invoke personal guarantees of tycoons ranging from Venugopal Dhoot to Kapil Wadhawan to recover unpaid loans from their delinquent firms, sources said Monday.

According to an estimate, the top 10 personal guarantors have guaranteed debt of over Rs 1.6 lakh crore. Among the big names, former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Sanjay Singhal and his wife Aarti Singhal had furnished personal guarantees worth up to Rs 24,550 crore to take loans from a consortium of bank-led by State Bank of India (SBI).

The former promoter of Reliance Communications, Anil Ambani, has also given a personal guarantee against the loan taken. Erstwhile promoter Wadhawan stands guarantee to loans taken by DHFL, which is sitting on a debt of about Rs 90,000 crore, while Dhoot has also given a personal guarantee to a portion of Rs 22,000 crore loan to Videocon.

The Supreme Court in May had held that the November 15, 2019 government notification allowing creditors, usually financial institutions and banks, to move against personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was ‘legal and valid’.

Post the judgement, a senior official of a public sector bank said banks are assessing the level of involvement of those directors who pledged their personal guarantee against the loan.

After the assessment, another banker said, banks would move National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for invoking personal guarantee as part of the recovery process.

The official said that banks have started receiving calls from some of the promoters for exclusion of their personal guarantee from the non-performing assets. Some of them are coming forward to resolve bad loans to save their personal wealth.

Most of the promoters thought that once their case is admitted under IBC, their past sins and obligations cease, the official said.

However, the order has generated fear among the promoters and directors who pledged their personal guarantee of losing their personal wealth as part of the resolution process, the official said, adding, the personal guarantee angle would expedite the resolution process as the guarantor stands at risk of losing personal property.

The creditor-debtor relationship has got a leg up and this will minimise chances of default in the future.

The concept of ‘guarantee’ is derived from Section 126 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. A contract of guarantee is made among the debtor, creditor and guarantor. If the debtor fails to repay the debt to the creditor, the burden falls on the guarantor to pay the amount.

The creditor reserves the right to begin insolvency proceedings against the personal guarantor if the latter does not pay. Usually, promoters of big businesses submit personal guarantees to creditors to secure loans and assure repayment.

During the hearings, the government had justified the November 2019 notification extending bankruptcy proceedings to personal guarantors. Attorney General KK Venugopal argued that by roping in guarantors, there was a greater likelihood that they would “arrange” for the payment of the debt to the creditor bank in order to obtain a quick discharge.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Covid-19: SC refuses to pass direction on plea to redress borrower hardship

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Supreme Court on Friday refused to pass direction on a plea seeking measures to redress the financial hardship faced by borrowers during the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, saying it is in the realm of policy decision.

“The government has many things to do. They have to spend money on vaccine, on migrant labourers,” the apex court said, adding that it is for the Centre and the RBI to consider the issue.

“These are issues having financial implications and we are not the experts,” a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah told advocate Vishal Tiwari, who has filed the petition.

The top court was hearing the plea which sought directions to the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to take remedial measures to redress the financial stress faced by borrowers during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

During the hearing, Tiwari referred to the reports on how the second wave of the pandemic has affected the economy.

“The petitioner submits that the circular does not address the hardship of the borrowers. Be that as it may, the financial relief and other measures are in the domain of the government,” the bench said in its order.

“We are of the view that no direction be passed. We observe that all the issues which are raised are policy matters and it is for the Union of India and the Reserve Bank of India to take appropriate decision,” the apex court said.

The bench said it had dealt with similar aspects in a writ petition which was filed last year.

The plea had sought directions to the Centre and the RBI to permit the lending institutions to grant interest free moratorium period for term loan and defer the payment of loan instalments for a period of six months or till the situation from Covid-19 normalises.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

No compound interest on loan, irrespective of amount, during moratorium, rules SC

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Supreme Court on Tuesday stopped banks from charging compound interest (interest on interest) or penal interest on any loan, irrespective of the amount, during the moratorium period.

A three-judge Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Subhash Reddy and M R Shah said the amounts taken as compound interest or penal interest should be adjusted in future loan payments.

However, the court agreed with the Rserve Bank of India (RBI) that extending the date of the loan moratorium was “not viable”.

The court said judicial review over fiscal policies was limited. The court cannot order specific financial reliefs.

The court questioned the rationale of limiting compound interest waiver to loan up to just ₹ 2 crore.

The government had introduced a pay-back scheme on October 23 last year. The scheme payments waived the difference in the compound interest and simple interest charged between March 1 and August 31 (moratorium period) for eight categories of loans worth up to ₹ two crore.

The eight categories were MSME, education, housing, consumer durables, credit card, auto, personal and consumption loans. The lending institutions included banking companies, public sector banks, cooperative banks, regional rural banks, all India financial institutions, non-banking financial companies, housing finance companies registered with RBI and national housing banks.

In November last year, the court had directed the Centre to implement the pay-back scheme.

However, borrowers had continued to press for an extension of the moratorium and also argued that the entire interest for the moratorium period should be scrapped. The petitioners also said the ₹ 2 -crore pay-back scheme did not bring any relief to big borrowers reeling under the impact of the pandemic.

While reserving the case for judgment on December 17 last year, the Indian Banks Association had said the pleas made by the petitioners extended beyond the financial stress they supposedly suffered during the pandemic.

The Centre had said a complete waiver of interest would cripple the economy and banking sector.

The State Bank of India had pleaded in support of the small depositors who form the “backbone” of the banking system.

“Small depositors are faceless in these proceedings. It is not a case of borrowers versus bank. They are the backbone of the financial system. Banks have to give interest to these depositors. How can we leave them?

For every loan account there are about 8.5 deposit accounts in the Indian banking system,” senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi had asked in court on the last date of hearing.

The RBI had referred to clause 3 of its August 6 circular for ‘Resolution Framework for COVID-19-related Stress’ to point out that lending institutions, guided by their respective Board-approved policy, would prepare viable resolution plans for eligible borrowers. However, the benefits would only be provided for borrowers stressed on account of COVID-19.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY