Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants  ||  Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically  ||  Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs  ||  Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders  ||  Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income  ||  SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law    

RBI imposes monetary penalty on Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Durg, Chhattisgarh- (Reserve Bank of India) (16 Nov 2021)

MANU/RPRL/0200/2021

Banking

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed, by an order dated November 16, 2021, a monetary penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakh (Rupees Two lakh only) on Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Durg, Chhattisgarh (the bank) for contravention of/ non-compliance with the directions issued by the RBI to Urban Co-operative Banks on Exposure Norms & Statutory/ Other Restrictions-UCBs and Know Your Customer (KYC). This 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, taking into account the 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 inspection report of the bank based on its financial position as on March 31, 2020, revealed, inter alia, that the bank had (i) not adhered to prudential inter-bank (Gross) exposure limit, (ii) not complied with the prudential inter-bank Counter Party limit and (iii) no system in place to identify suspicious transactions in contravention of/ non-compliance with the directions issued by RBI on Exposure Norms & Statutory/ Other Restrictions-UCBs and Know Your Customer (KYC). Based on the same, a Notice was issued to the bank advising it to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for non-compliance with the directions.

After considering the bank's replies, RBI came to the conclusion that the aforesaid charges of non-compliance with RBI directions were substantiated and warranted imposition of monetary penalty.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   BANK  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved