Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Reserve Bank of India imposes monetary penalty on Bajaj Finance Limited- (Reserve Bank of India) (05 Jan 2021)

MANU/RPRL/0003/2021

Banking

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed a monetary penalty of Rs. 2.50 crore (Rupees Two crore Fifty lakh only) on Bajaj Finance Limited, Pune (the company), by an order dated January 05, 2021, for violation of (i) directions issued by RBI on Managing Risks and Code of Conduct in Outsourcing of Financial Services by NBFCs and Fair Practices Code (FPC) for applicable NBFCs, contained in the Non-Banking Financial Company - Systemically Important Non-Deposit taking Company and Deposit taking Company (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016; and (ii) a specific direction to the company to ensure full compliance with FPC in letter and spirit.

This penalty has been imposed in exercise of powers vested in RBI under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 58 G read with clause (aa) of sub-section (5) of section 58B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, taking into account the failure of the company to ensure that its recovery agents did not resort to harassment or intimidation of customers as part of its debt collection efforts and thereby failing to adhere to the aforesaid directions issued by RBI. There were also persistent/repeat complaints about recovery and collection methods adopted by the company.

For the above lapses, a notice was issued to the company advising it to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for such non-compliance. After considering the company's reply to the notice, oral submissions made during the personal hearing and examination of additional submissions made by it, RBI concluded that the charge of non-compliance with the aforesaid RBI directions was substantiated and warranted imposition of monetary penalty.

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 company with its customers.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   BAJAJ FINANCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved