Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Summoning Evidence Opportunity Must be Granted Even in Civil-Natured Criminal Cases  ||  J&K&L HC: UAPA Trials Cannot Linger and Must Proceed With Day-To-Day Hearing under NIA Act  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Delhi HC: Private Schools May Increase Fees Without Prior Approval if Declared Before Session Begins  ||  Supreme Court: Omission of Accused in Inquest Report Alone Does Not Indicate Innocence    

RBI imposes monetary penalty on The Bharat Co-operative Bank Limited, Bengaluru, Karnataka- (Reserve Bank of India) (05 Dec 2022)

MANU/RPRL/0561/2022

Banking

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed, by an order dated November 28, 2022, a monetary penalty of ₹ 5.00 lakh (Rupees Five lakh only) on The Bharat Co-operative Bank Limited, Bengaluru, Karnataka (the bank) for non-adherence / violation of directions issued under Exposure Norms and Statutory / Other Restrictions - UCBs. This penalty has been imposed in exercise of powers vested in RBI under the provisions of Section 47A(1)(c) read with Section 46(4)(i) and Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (AACS), 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 reports of the bank based on its financial position as on March 31, 2020 and March 31, 2021, revealed, inter alia, that the bank's investment in commercial paper breached the prudential individual exposure limit of 15% of capital funds. 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 reply and oral submissions during the personal hearing, RBI came to the conclusion that the aforesaid charge of non-compliance with RBI directions was substantiated and warranted imposition of monetary penalty.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   NON-COMPLIANCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved