PNB expects recovery of Rs 14,000 cr in 3 qtrs; Rs 4-6K cr profit in FY22, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


New Delhi, Aug 3 (PTI) State-owned Punjab National Bank (PNB) on Tuesday said it expects a recovery of Rs 14,000 crore from bad loans during the three quarters and earn a profit of Rs 4,000-6,000 crore in 2021-22 aided by rationalisation of expenses along with robust recovery. Controlling the expenditure has got multiple dimensions, one of them is rationalisation of branches, PNB managing director S S Mallikarjuna Rao told reporters.

“We have succeeded in rationalising more than 500 branches. We are expecting to rationalise 1,000 branches by March 2022, which will give huge amount of reduction in the operational expenditure,” he said.

Currently, the bank has about 10,641 branches across the country.

On the recovery side, he said, the bank expects Rs 5,000-5,200 crore from NCLT cases by March 2022. This will help reduce bad debt or non-performing assets by about Rs 12,000 crore.

“In normal recovery we generally get around Rs 3,000 crore per quarter. So, another Rs 9,000-10,000 crore we are expecting in normal recovery,” he said.

Rao exuded the confidence that the bank should earn annual profit between Rs 4,000 crore and Rs 6,000 crore aided by strong recovery and cost rationalisation during the current financial year.

“Guidance for 2021-22 would be Rs 4,000-6,000 crore…at the balancesheet level the cost of deposits have been reduced drastically, cost to income ratio has been reduced, yield on advances has come down,” he said.

Besides, recoveries from NPAs where provision coverage ratio is 80 per cent, these will be write back, he said.

“So 50 per cent of profit will be contributed by the write back during the year. So profit would come from mix of cost rationalisation and write back,” he said.

With regard to further capital raising, he said, if you look at the capital adequacy ratio, it is 15.19 which is adequate to take care of 8-10 per cent credit growth.

“However, PNB, being a big bank, in order to insulate itself from the capital requirement for future and not to depend on the government, we will definitely look at discuss about it one month or so and take a call on that,” he said.

This exercise would be with a view to generating buffers not for meeting business requirement, he said. Currently, the government holds 73.1 per cent in the bank.

On the perceived threat on the telecom sector due to the AGR order of the Supreme Court, he said all the telecom players are requesting the government to look at it. “So the developments in the last few days are areas of concern for the banking industry,” he said.

PNB’s exposure is not very high that is going to impact the balance sheet, he said, adding “however, we will be definitely discussing with other bankers to see what kind of action we need to take going forward considering the statement of K M Birla only yesterday.”

The Supreme Court last month said it would pass orders on applications filed by telecom majors-Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Tele Services Ltd-raising the issue of alleged errors in calculation in the figure of adjusted gross revenue (AGR)-related dues.

The apex court in September last year had given 10 years time to telecom service providers struggling to pay Rs 93,520 crore of AGR-related dues to clear their outstanding amount to the government.

Rao also said PNB will divest its stake in Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance Company in the next 12 months.

The city-headquartered state-owned bank had acquired a stake in the life insurer post amalgamation of the erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) into itself last fiscal year. The erstwhile OBC held 23 per cent stake in the life insurer, which by virtue of amalgamation has come to PNB.

Canara Bank owns 51 per cent stake, while HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific) Holdings Ltd as a foreign partner owns 26 per cent.

It is also a promoter of another insurer PNB Metlife Insurance, owning the highest stake of 30 per cent. The company was set up in 2001, in which other shareholders include US-based Metlife with 26 per cent, Elpro (21 per cent) and M Pallonji & Company (18 per cent).

As per extant insurance guidelines of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Irdai), one promoter cannot hold more than 10 per cent stake in two insurance ventures. PTI DP MR MR



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Punjab & Sind Bank reports Q1 net profit at Rs 174 cr, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


State-owned Punjab & Sind Bank on Thursday reported a net profit of Rs 173.85 crore for the first quarter ended June 30. The bank had posted a net loss of Rs 116.89 crore a year ago. Sequentially, it had registered a net profit of Rs 160.79 crore in the March 2021 quarter.

The total income of the bank during Q1FY22 rose to Rs 2,039.61 crore from Rs 1,954.39 crore in Q1FY21, Punjab & Sind Bank said in a regulatory filing.

Provisions for bad loans and contingencies for the quarter fell to Rs 77.30 crore from Rs 382.56 crore in the year-ago period.

The bank’s asset quality showed an improvement and the gross non-performing assets (NPAs or bad loans) came down to 13.33 per cent of the gross advances as of June 30, 2021, against 14.34 per cent a year ago.

In absolute value, the net NPAs stood at Rs 9,054.96 crore, up from Rs 8,848.06 crore.

The net NPAs ratio fell to 3.61 per cent (Rs 2,206.70 crore), from 7.57 per cent (Rs 4,326.41 crore).

The bank said it has kept the account of Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) as standard, in accordance with the Supreme Court order and RBI guidelines.

The bank has not treated an outstanding of Rs 166.63 crore towards DAMEPL as NPA, it said. It has held the provisions of Rs 92.24 crore against this, higher than the required Rs 49.59 crore.

The provision coverage ratio of the bank stood at 84.22 per cent as of June 30, 2021, and the liquidity coverage ratio at 215.52 per cent.

Shares of the bank jumped 4.37 per cent to close at Rs 20.30 apiece on BSE.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

It’s time for digital currency to counter crypto, says RBI, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


MUMBAI: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has said that it is working towards a phased implementation strategy for its digital currency and examining use cases where it can be deployed with little disruption. Making a strong argument in favour of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) for India, the RBI has said that it would reduce currency costs for the government and would help offset the threat of virtual currencies.

“Developing our own CBDC could provide the public with uses that any private virtual currency can provide and to that extent might retain the public preference for the rupee. It could also protect the public from the abnormal level of volatility some of these virtual currencies experience,” RBI deputy governor T Rabi Sankar said on Thursday at a webinar organised by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Sankar added that conducting pilots on CBDC in wholesale and retail segments may be a possibility in the near future. “As is said, every idea will have to wait for its time. Perhaps the time for CBDCs is nigh,” he said.

On the consequences of digital currencies on banks, Sankar said that while it could reduce the need for maintaining deposits, the impact would be limited as they cannot pay interest. “Thus, potential costs of disintermediation mean it is important to design and implement CBDC in a way that makes the demand for CBDC, vis-a-vis bank deposits, manageable,” said Sankar.

The key issues examined by the RBI include whether these should be used in retail payments or also in wholesale payments, whether it should be a distributed ledger or a centralised ledger, whether it should be token-based or account-based, whether it should be directly issuance by the RBI or through banks and the degree of anonymity.

In a strong attack against virtual currencies (cryptocurrencies), Sankar said, “Private virtual currencies sit at substantial odds to the historical concept of money. They are not commodities or claims on commodities as they have no intrinsic value, some claims that they are akin to gold clearly seem opportunistic. For the most popular ones now, they do not represent any person’s debt or liabilities. There is no issuer. They are not money.”

The deputy governor said 86% of central banks were actively researching the potential for virtual currencies and 60% were already experimenting with the technology, and 14% are deploying pilot projects. He said that interest had spiked to replace paper and avoid the more damaging consequences of private currencies.

The deputy governor’s statement comes at a time when the RBI has been forced by a Supreme Court order to withdraw a ban on bank services to cryptocurrencies. Although the RBI has earlier spoken about plans to launch a digital currency, this is the first time that the central bank has gone into so much detail. Central banks across the world have drawn up plans to launch their digital currency to battle cryptocurrencies. China has said that its e-CNY has been tested in 70 million transactions.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Videocon resolution may be back to square one after NCLAT stay, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


After NCLAT stayed the order of the NCLT of Mumbai Bench, the process of Videocon Industries’s liquidation case may start all over again. Legal experts also believe that SBI-led creditors may not do anything but the bid winner Anil Agarwal’s Twin Star may appeal in Supreme Court against the NCLAT order.

“As of now, NCLAT has stayed the order. The creditors (appellant) were possibly challenging the entire bidding approved by NCLT on the grounds that some procedures might not have been followed, opinions not being considered. Now there are high chances that the entire process can restart,” said Vikas Tomar, Partner, Indian Law Partners.

There are 35 financial creditors of Videocon, of which 19 major creditors, including SBI, Union Bank, IDBI, Central Bank, BOB and ICICI Bank approved the resolution, which includes the 95.85% haircut. But three minority shareholders, Bank of Maharashtra, SIDBI and IFCI rejected the resolution on the ground of low resolution and filed an appeal in NCLAT.

Large versus Minority Creditors versus Bidder

The plea of minority shareholders is heard and the whole case will move in a direction to get more benefits for the financial creditors.

“Banks are normally prepared to take a 60-70 per cent haircut on payments if an insolvency process is initiated. The bid was also rejected on the grounds that they should be compensated upfront and in cash rather than through NCDs. Accepting this bid will just increase the banks’ losses, and now their only option is to call for bids from interested parties,” said Sonam Chandwani. Managing Partners, KS Legal and Associates.

The main ground of the minority shareholders was the low resolution amount.

“The large financial creditors like SBI and others may prefer to keep quiet and wait for the court to do its process. But there are high chances that Anil Agarwal’s Twin Star Technologies may appeal in Supreme Court against NCLAT order,” said a legal expert who did not want to be identified.

There were 11 bidders for Videocon but only three had bid for the whole Videocon’s group assets. The majority of them had bid for only a particular division of the company. Hence on one side, there is a big hope that minority shareholders will recover more, but on the other side there the whole process may take a long time.

The Videocon resolution case has been one of the most dramatic in the IBC process. Starting from Chanda Kochchar, former MD and CEO, ICICI Bank losing her job and facing trials with investigative agencies for irregularities in the giving loans to the group, to the fresh challenge to the resolution process, it has been a bumpy road.



[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

Trustees must get unit-holders’ consent before winding up a scheme, rules SC

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that trustees of a mutual fund scheme have to take the consent of the unit-holders, who have invested their money, before deciding to wind up the scheme or prematurely redeeming the units.

Trustees cannot give themselves the air of “domain experts” and treat unit-holders as “lay persons” whose consent is not necessary before winding up.

“The argument that the unit-holders are lay persons and not well-versed with the market conditions is to be rejected. Investments by the unit-holders constitute the corpus of the scheme. To deny the unit-holders a say debilitates their role and right to participate,” a Bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna observed in a judgment.

The Bench was hearing an appeal by Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited on the winding up of its six mutual fund schemes. The judgment harmoniously interprets Regulation 18(15)(c) with Regulation 39 (2) (a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations of 1996.

Regulation 18 mandates that trustees seek the consent of the unit-holders, while Regulation 39 allows a close-ended mutual fund scheme to be wound up if the trustees give that opinion. The latter Regulation is silent about getting unit-holders’ consent.

The Supreme Court opted for a middle path between the two Regulations. “The Principle of Harmonious Construction should be applied in the context of the Regulations in question… This would mean the opinion of the trustees would stand, but the consent of the unit-holders is a pre-requisite for winding up,” Justice Khanna observed.

The court said that unlike the trustees of a mutual fund scheme, unit-holders may not be domain experts. But they are “discerning investors who are perceptive and prudent”.

“…Thus, the contention that the trustees, being specialists and experts in the field, their decision should be treated as binding and fait accompli has to be rejected,” Justice Khanna wrote.

Like shareholders

The court compared unit-holders of a mutual fund scheme with the shareholders of a company. “The waterfall mechanism under the Companies Act, or the Indian Bankruptcy Code, gives primacy to the dues of the creditors over the shareholders. Identical is the position of the unit-holders… the argument that unit-holders should be treated pari passu with the creditors is far-fetched,” the court noted.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Banks move to invoke personal guarantees, promoters of 17 defaulting firms may lose their wealth, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Banks have approached the National Company Law Tribunal for invoking personal guarantees of promoters of 17 defaulting companies.

The defaulting promoters include those of Punj Lloyd, Amtek Auto, ABG Shipyard, Videocon, Varun Shipping, and Lanco, according to reports.

Armed with a Supreme Court order, banks are looking to invoke personal guarantees of tycoons from Venugopal Dhoot to Kapil Wadhawan to recover unpaid loans from their delinquent firms

The guaranteed debt

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 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 SC order

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.

Banks have started receiving calls from some of the promoters for the 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 obligations cease.

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 personal guarantees are likely to expedite the resolution process as the guarantor stands the risk of losing personal property.


The hurdle

Many of these promoters are being investigated for fraud and their assets are already attached by the investigative agencies. Getting these assets released from the law agencies will take time.

SBI action

SBI was one of the respondents to the 74 petitions and challenges by promoters on invocation of personal guarantees. It has been in the forefront of invoking guarantees of promoters of defaulting companies. It had invoked Rs 1200 crore of guarantees given by Ambani for defaulting companies Reliance Communications and Reliance Infratel.

SBI had also approached the Mumbai bench of the NCLT to initiate guarantees by the Videocon Indsutries‘ Dhoot brothers totalling Rs 11,500 crore.

It had also taken Bhushan Power & Steel promoter Sanjay Singal to court to recover Rs 12,276 crore dues to the bank for which he was a guarantor. All these promoters had challenged these actions in court.



[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

RBI to HC, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


New Delhi: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Monday told the Delhi High Court that it has given in-principle approval for setting up a small finance bank that will take over the scam-hit PMC Bank soon. A bench of Justices D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh granted time to the RBI to file an affidavit on the development in the matter and listed the case for further hearing on August 20.

Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, representing the RBI, submitted that it has given in-principle approval to Centrum Finance Services Ltd to set up a small finance bank that will take over Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank very soon as the process is near completion.

He said this will ease the trouble faced by the bank’s customers who are unable to withdraw their money.

The court was hearing an application by consumer rights activist Bejon Kumar Misra seeking directions to the RBI to consider other needs of PMC Bank depositors such as education, weddings and dire financial position, not just serious medical emergencies as being done at present.

The application was filed in Misra’s main PIL seeking directions to the RBI to ease the moratorium on withdrawals from the PMC Bank during the coronavirus pandemic.

Advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi, representing Misra, submitted that more than five dates have been given to the authorities and the hard-earned money of the depositors has not been released.

At least senior citizens are allowed to withdraw their money up to Rs 5 lakh as they are suffering from hardship and the depositors are unable to withdraw their own money.

The high court had earlier said that according to the Supreme Court‘s decision on withdrawal of money by depositors of PMC bank for exigencies, exceptions can be carved out for urgent medical and educational requirements.

The court had asked the depositors, whose needs have been highlighted before the court in a PIL, to once again approach the RBI-appointed administrator of PMC bank giving details of their financial needs along for medical or educational reasons within three weeks.

RBI had earlier argued that while it sympathises with the plight of the depositors, everyone would have some or other financial emergency; and if Rs 5 lakh was released to all, as provided in case of medical emergencies, the bank would be in difficulty and depositors would not get their entire deposits back.

RBI had said it was trying to keep the bank functioning in the interests of the depositors and had floated an expression of interest for investing in it and has received some bids.

The PMC Bank has been put under restrictions, including limiting withdrawals, by the RBI, following the unearthing of a Rs 4,355-crore scam.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

SC seeks response of Centre, RBI on plea of PNB against disclosure of info under RTI, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has refused to grant interim stay on the RBI‘s notice asking Punjab National Bank to disclose information such as defaulters list and its inspection reports under the RTI Act, and sought responses from the Centre, federal bank and its central public information officer.

The apex court tagged the plea of the Punjab National Bank (PNB), which is a public sector unit bank, with a similar pending case filed by HDFC Bank against the RBI’s direction.

“Issue notice. Tag with writ petition (Civil) No.1159 of 2019 (HDFC plea),” a bench comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said, and fixed the plea for hearing on July 19.

Banks are aggrieved by the notices issued by the RBI to them under Section 11(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act asking them to part with information pertaining to their inspection reports and risk assessment.

The RTI Act empowers the RBI’s central public information officer (CPIO) to seek information from banks for information seekers.

Earlier on April 28, the top court, on legal grounds, had refused to recall its famous 2015 judgment in the Jayantilal N Mistry case, which had held that the RBI will have to provide information about banks and financial institutions (FIs) regulated by it under the transparency law.

Several FIs and banks, including Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda, UCO Bank and 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,” the apex court had held.

While dismissing the pleas, the bench, however, had made it clear that it was not dealing with any of the submissions made by the banks on the correctness of the 2015 judgment.

Now, the apex court is seized of several pleas of banks like HDFC and Punjab National Bank against the RBI’s direction to disclose information under RTI.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 3 4 5 6 7 9