UK court again rejects Nirav Modi's bail plea
A British court on Wednesday extended, till May 30, the judicial custody of fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi, while rejecting his fourth bail plea as it suspected that he could flee the country and "interfere" with witnesses.
 
The Westminster Magistrates' Court ordered the Metropolitan Police to put him under its custody till the next hearing on May 30.
 
The 48-year-old businessman, wanted in India in connection with Rs 13,500 crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case, was arrested from Holborn here on March 19. Since then, he has been fighting extradition proceedings. 
 
Nirav Modi was produced before the court via videoconferencing from Wandsworth prison in south-west London. 
 
The businessman and his uncle Mehul Choksi are being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation after the PNB alleged that they cheated it of Rs 13,500 crore with the involvement of a few bank employees.
 
Both fled India before the details of the fraud emerged in January 2018. The ED on February 26, 2018 attached property worth Rs 147 crore of Nirav Modi and his companies in connection with the case.
 
This is the fourth time when the businessman's bail was rejected by the court. Nirav Modi's first bail plea was rejected on the second day of his arrest, and the other two pleas subsequently. 
 
Judge Emma Arbuthnot on March 29 had granted the Metropolitan Police custody of Nirav Modi. She is the same judge who ordered the extradition of former Kingfisher Airlines boss Vijay Mallya in December. 
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

RBI Withdraws Circular Asking Banks To Declare IL&FS Exposure
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), on Wednesday, withdrew its earlier circular which mandated banks and financial institutions to disclose their outstanding to Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS) and its group companies including provisioning required as per income recognition and asset classification (IRAC) and actual provisioning made against non-performing assets (NPAs).
 
According to RBI, its circular dated 24 April 2019 stands withdrawn.
 
"In view of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)'s order dated May 2, 2019 in respect of company appeal...the instructions contained in the above mentioned circular stand withdrawn," RBI said in a notification.
 
On 24th April, RBI had asked banks and financial institutions to disclose their outstanding to IL&FS and its group companies.
 
NCLAT's order, dated 25th February said: "No financial institution will declare the accounts of 'Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd' or its entities as 'NPA' without prior permission of this Appellate Tribunal." 
 
The RBI, however, has since then contested the view and said that banks should classify the accounts of IL&FS and its companies as NPAs.
 
The central bank also asked the banks to declare the "position of provisions which are required to be made as per IRAC norms" and the "position of provisions actually held."
 
In April, during a hearing in the NCLAT, RBI's counsel Gopal Jain said that true reflection in the books of the banks is important for fair accounting because it has early warning signals.
 
It is the obligation of banks to mark any loan as NPA after a default of 90 days, and they cannot be relieved from doing that, said RBI, adding that it is a process which every bank has to follow.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Madhur Agarwal

2 weeks ago

The author obviously has no idea about how effective the IBC has been in the last 2 years! Don't understand how such uninformed articles can be written!

REPLY

Vijay Chandar

In Reply to Madhur Agarwal 2 weeks ago

I also thought that IBC was an effective resolution process for stressed loans. But this MoneyLife article gives information, which, if true, throws a completely different light on the IBC.
https://www.moneylife.in/article/the-ibc-is-going-the-way-of-previous-failed-laws-on-bad-loan/57121.html

AAR

2 weeks ago

Whats wrong in revealing the exposure?
In fact, all Public Sector Banks should disclose all their defaulting loan details.

ramchandran vishwanathan

2 weeks ago

Is the Central bank supposed to be pro investor or Pro sinking corporates. This is really sad , we as investors in banks through FDs have a right to know which Bank has what exposure to this colossal failure called IL&FS

MT

2 weeks ago

Systemic attempt to hide the actual default figure ?

RBI Dares Supreme Court; Fights Shy of Disclosing Bank Inspection Reports
Just last month, the Supreme Court gave a stern warning and final opportunity to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on the central bank’s position on the disclosure of annual inspection reports of banks, list of wilful defaulters and other details sought by activists under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, instead of following the apex court directive, the RBI, on 30 April 2019, just uploaded its revised disclosure policy under the RTI Act on its website. The RBI has not yet placed in the public domain the annual inspection reports of banks as per the directives from the Supreme Court.
 
Girish Mittal, one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court, says, “In spite of the clear and specific order from the Supreme Court for providing the information on bank inspection reports, the RBI has amended its disclosure policy and continues to say that inspection reports are exempt under section 8(1). This, in other words, means that the RBI is in no mood to follow orders from the Supreme Court.”
 
The new disclosure policy of RBI restrains citizens from inspecting, supervising and scrutinising reports of banks and other financial institutions under the RTI Act. The disclosure policy also debars citizens from taking any information derived from these reports or contained in such reports, and supervisory action taken thereon using sections 8 (1) (h) and 8(1)(j) of the Act. 
 
Last month, in an order, the bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah had said, "Though we could have taken a serious view of RBI continuing to violate the directions issued by this Court, we give them a last opportunity to withdraw the disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions, which are contrary to the directions issued by this Court. The RBI are duty bound to furnish all information relating to inspection reports and other material apart from the material that was exempted in para 77 of the judgment. Any further violation shall be viewed seriously by this Court.”
 
The apex court also directed the central bank to withdraw its non-disclosure policy, which the Court concluded is in violation of the Supreme Court's judgement in 2015. The RBI, as per 2015 judgement, was directed to disclose the annual audit reports of the banks, status of NPAs (non-performing assets) and action taken thereon.
 
However, instead of withdrawing its disclosure policy, the RBI has revised the policy. The list of ‘exemptions’, which the central bank claims’ is only indicative and not exhaustive, and has exemptions such as Section 45NB of the RBI Act. 
 
In its revised disclosure policy, the RBI has exempted various other information such as inspection or scrutiny reports of non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) and returns filed by the NBFCs. 
 
However, it is interesting to note that Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides all the other laws as far as disclosure of information is concerned. Section 22 of the Act states, “The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
 
Mr Mittal says, "RBI in its submission before the Supreme Court contempt case has given an undertaking that they will amend the disclosure policy to be in cognisance with the orders of apex court in the Jayantilal Mistry Vs RBI judgement. But it is clear from the amendment carried out by RBI on 30th April that the central bank had given a false undertaking and wants to continue to defy orders of the Supreme Court as well as the order in the contempt petition." 
 
Earlier, both, the apex court as well as central information commission (CIC), had held that RBI cannot refuse to put in the public domain the annual inspection reports of banks. However, RBI has refused to follow these orders saying that these reports contain 'fiduciary information' as defined under the RTI Act and, hence, cannot be placed in the public domain. 
 
RTI activists Subhash Chander Agrawal and Mr Mittal had moved the top court seeking contempt action against RBI governor for not complying with its 2015 judgement.
 
The petitioners had claimed that RBI and its former governor Dr Urjit Patel had 'wilfully and deliberately' disobeyed the apex court's judgement asking the central bank to disclose information under the RTI Act.
 
The two petitioners had sought initiation of contempt of court action against former Governor of RBI for not disclosing information as directed by the top court.
 
One of the contempt petitions filed by Mr Mittal mentioned that RBI refused to provide information sought about the inspection reports of some banks.  
 
In the petition, Mumbai-based Mr Mittal, represented by senior counsel Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, had contended that he had sought information under the RTI Act in December 2015 like copies of inspection reports of ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, HDFC Bank and State Bank of India (SBI) from April 2011 and copies of case files, with file notings on various irregularities detected by RBI in the case of Sahara group of companies and erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan.
 
However, in January 2016, RBI denied the information saying that such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and Section 45NB of the RBI Act.
 
The petitioners recalled the Supreme Court ruling in a case that RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximise the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank and, thus, there is no relationship of 'trust' between them. (Read: SC issues contempt notice to RBI in RTI case)
 
Last year in November, the CIC too had issued a show-cause notice to Dr Patel, the then governor of RBI, for not honouring a judgement of the Supreme Court on disclosure of wilful defaulters’ list who had not paid loans of Rs50 crore and more.
 
 
Earlier in February 2016, the Supreme Court had directed RBI to furnish a list of the companies which are in default of loans in excess of Rs500 crore or whose loans have been restructured under corporate debt restructuring (CDR) scheme by banks and financial institutions. (Read: Supreme Court asks RBI to submit list of big defaulters)
 
Before that in December 2015, the apex court, in a landmark judgement, had told RBI that the banking regulator cannot withhold information citing 'fiduciary relations' under the RTI Act.  
 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

VASANT KULKARNI

2 weeks ago

RBI IS RBI. THE MATTER REALLY REQUIRES SERIOUS THOUGHTS AS IT IS LIKELY TO HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE DEPOSITORS. BECAUSE THE INSPECTION IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AND IRREGULARITIES CAN BE RECTIFIED IN DUE COURSE.
AS COMMON DEPOSITORS ARE NOT AWARE OF THESE TECHNICALITIES, ANY ADVERSE REPORT MAY CREATE PANIC AMONG THEM RESULTING IN A RUN ON SUCH BANK. SO BE CAREFUL.

SuchindranathAiyerS

2 weeks ago

If the Bank publishes the reports and this causes a run on some banks, how can the RBI bail them out with inadequate reserves under threat from the Finance Ministry?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-RBI-not-interested-in-publishing-the-names-of-wilful-defaulters/answer/Suchindranath-Aiyer?prompt_topic_bio=1

Iyer Siva

2 weeks ago

It is absolutely indecipherable to anyone with the relevant domain knowledge hereto that all the relevant legal provisions and enabling acts do appear to be contrary to each other on one hand and one overriding the other and the generally assumed superior power of Supreme Court over another forum or other regulatory authority, on the other hand, based on what are reported to be relevant sections of related applicable laws that are quoted here. There is APEX COURT DIRECTIVE , there is one super overriding law of section 22 of RTI Act and there are absolute and inclusive cover of section 45N of RBI act, which are contrary and giving exclusive right to negate the other quoted legal provisions in absolute terms leaving the general public to an abysmally unclear perception as to which one is to believed and rank valid than the others. I feel, before it is too late, let the executive and legislation authorities should decide among themselves -with the legal and monetary regulators hereto - should have form a forum acceptable to stakeholders hereto and arrange for a meeting wit a fixed deadline, of the experts from each one of them to thrash out the inconsistencies and finally approve a system with enabling laws or amendments needed thereto in the respective extant Acts. Such action should be on priority and should be done as part of the most needed legal reforms which the country is looking forward to since very long.

Arun Kumar Saha

2 weeks ago

SC should do the same things which it did to other thugs like Sahara, Amrapali promoters. Bring RBI Governor behind the cage of Tihar jail just for few days then RBI will automatically start running within the line. If SC can force even mighty Central govt towards proper disclosure e.g. the case of Rafael, then what stops it to apply force on RBI?

REPLY

B. KRISHNAN

In Reply to Arun Kumar Saha 2 weeks ago

Then the Governor will truly become a "caged parrot". Humour aside, I agree that some strong medicine should be administered to this rhino like regulator!

B. KRISHNAN

2 weeks ago

Some gumption! I am looking forward to the rap on the knuckles which SC will surely administer to this arrogant institution!

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)