SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty  ||  SC: Upholding Surendra Koli’s Conviction on Rejected Evidence Would Violate Articles 14 and 21  ||  SC: In Execution Petition, Decree-Holder Must Prove Violation by Judgment Debtor  ||  SC: Insurers Must Compensate Accident Victims Despite Policy Breach, Can Recover From Owner  ||  Kerala HC: Long-Term Posting of Same Police Officer at Sabarimala May Affect Transparency, Efficiency  ||  Delhi HC: Post-Dated Cheques Given as Security Attract Section 138 NI Act After Liability Arises  ||  MP High Court: Railways Liable for Deaths on Tracks if it Fails to Take Preventive Measures  ||  Ker HC: NDPS Case Stands Even if Contraband Listed in Ml, if Chemical Report Shows Equivalent Weight  ||  Kerala HC: Father’s Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached for Child Maintenance Despite S.60(1)(g) CPC  ||  Supreme Court: A Decree Declared 'Nullity' Can be Challenged at Any Stage, Including Execution    

Reserve Bank of India imposes monetary penalty on Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai- (Reserve Bank of India) (23 Jan 2020)

MANU/RPRL/0012/2020

Banking

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has, by order dated January 22, 2020, imposed monetary penalty of Rs. 14 lakh on Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai, (the bank) for non-compliance with directions issued by RBI on Income Recognition and Asset Classification (IRAC) norms.

The penalty has been imposed in exercise of powers vested in RBI under the provisions of Section 47 A (1) (c) read with Section 46 (4) (i) and Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, for failure of the bank to adhere to the aforesaid directions issued by RBI. This action is based on deficiencies in regulatory compliance and is not intended to pronounce upon the validity of any transaction or agreement entered into by the bank with its customers.

Background

The statutory inspection of the bank with reference to its financial position as on March 31, 2018, conducted by RBI, revealed, inter alia, non-compliance with RBI directions on IRAC norms. In furtherance to the same, a notice was issued to the bank advising it to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for failure to comply with the aforesaid directions. After considering the bank's reply, oral submissions made during the personal hearing and examination of additional submissions, RBI came to conclusion that the aforesaid charges were established which warranted imposition of monetary penalty.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   BANK  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved