Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

RBI imposes monetary penalty on Shree Co-operative Bank Limited, Vadodara (Gujarat)- (Reserve Bank of India) (21 Aug 2023)

MANU/RPRL/0481/2023

Banking

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed, by an Order dated August 11, 2023, a monetary penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on Shree Co-operative Bank Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat (the bank) for non-compliance with direction issued by RBI on 'Loans and advances to directors, relatives, firms/concerns in which they are interested'. This penalty has been imposed in exercise of powers vested in the RBI under the provisions of Section 47A (1) (c) read with Sections 46 (4) (i) and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

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 conducted by RBI with reference to the bank's financial position as on March 31, 2022, and examination of the Inspection Report, Risk Assessment Report pertaining thereto and all related correspondence pertaining to the same revealed, inter-alia, that the bank had sanctioned loan wherein spouse of one of the bank's directors stood as surety/guarantor. 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 on it for failure to comply with the directions stated therein.

After considering the bank's reply to the notice and oral submissions made during the personal hearing, RBI came to the conclusion that the aforesaid charge of non-compliance with RBI direction was substantiated and warranted imposition of monetary penalty.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   NON-COMPLIANCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved