NPA & Loan Settlement Blogs

Strategies For Effective NPA Resolution

Proactively identifying potential Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) is essential for financial institutions to maintain portfolio health and mitigate credit risk. Implementing robust monitoring systems and conducting regular assessments can facilitate early detection of financial distress, enabling timely corrective actions.

Implement Robust Monitoring Systems

Early Warning Systems (EWS) are instrumental in detecting signs of borrower distress before loans become non-performing. These systems utilize advanced analytics, including machine learning and artificial intelligence, to monitor various indicators such as payment delays, changes in credit scores, and market fluctuations. By analyzing these factors, EWS can identify potential risks and alert banks to take preventive measures.

Conduct Regular Financial Health Reviews

Regularly assessing borrowers' financial health is vital. This involves analyzing financial statements, credit reports, and market conditions to evaluate the borrower's capacity to meet obligations. Periodic reviews help in identifying any adverse changes in financial status, allowing banks to engage with borrowers proactively to address issues before they escalate.

Perform Stress Testing

Stress testing evaluates how borrowers and the institution's portfolio would perform under adverse economic scenarios. By simulating conditions such as economic downturns or market volatility, banks can assess the resilience of their portfolios and identify vulnerabilities. This process informs strategic decisions and risk management practices.

Timely Corrective Actions

Upon identifying early signs of distress, banks should engage with borrowers to restructure loans, provide financial counseling, or adjust repayment schedules. Timely interventions can prevent defaults and reduce the incidence of NPAs, preserving the financial health of both the borrower and the institution.

Incorporating these practices enables financial institutions to detect and address potential NPAs proactively, ensuring a healthier loan portfolio and enhanced financial stability.

Non-Performing Assets (NPAs)

Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) serve as a critical indicator of a bank's financial health, directly influencing its profitability and stability. When borrowers default on loan repayments, these loans are classified as NPAs, signaling potential challenges in the bank's asset quality and future income prospects.

Impact on Capital Adequacy and Shareholder Value

The presence of NPAs necessitates banks to set aside provisions to cover potential losses. This provisioning impacts the Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR), a key metric that assesses a bank's financial strength by comparing its capital to its risk-weighted assets. An increase in NPAs leads to higher provisioning, which can erode the CAR. A declining CAR may diminish shareholder value and restrict the bank's ability to raise additional equity from capital markets, thereby affecting its overall financial flexibility.

Necessity for Prompt Resolution Strategies

Without timely and effective resolution strategies, NPAs can deteriorate in value, potentially leaving banks with minimal recoverable amounts. Implementing efficient recovery mechanisms is essential to prevent further financial degradation.

Credits:
ResearchGate

Illustration: The NPA Impact Cycle

To simplify, consider the following flowchart illustrating the impact of NPAs on a bank's financial health:

NPA Consequences Illustrative Flowchart:

1. [A] Loan Default

   • Description: This occurs when a borrower fails to repay the loan as per the agreed terms. Reasons could include financial distress, economic downturns, or mismanagement.

2. [B] Loan Classified as NPA

   • Description: After 90 days of non-payment (in India), the loan is categorized as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), indicating it is unlikely to be repaid.

3. [C] Increased Provisioning

   • Description: Banks are required to set aside additional funds (provisions) as a buffer for the likely loss. This reduces the bank's profitability.

4. [D] Reduced Capital Adequacy Ratio

   • Description: With increased provisioning, the bank's capital adequacy ratio—a measure of financial stability—declines. This limits its ability to lend further.

5. [E] Decreased Shareholder Value

   • Description: Shareholders experience losses as the bank’s financial health deteriorates, leading to a drop in its stock value.

6. [F] Limited Access to Capital Markets

   • Description: With reduced trust in the bank’s financial stability, it becomes harder for the bank to raise funds from investors or capital markets.

7. [G] Financial Instability

   • Description: The accumulation of NPAs weakens the banking system, causing financial instability at both institutional and systemic levels.

8. [H] A Chain of Bank Failures and Sub-Prime Crisis

   • Description: If NPAs escalate without resolution, it can lead to a chain reaction of bank failures and systemic crises, similar to the 2008 financial crisis.

Conclusion

In summary, NPAs significantly affect a bank's financial health, influencing capital adequacy and shareholder value. Implementing prompt and effective resolution strategies is essential to mitigate these impacts and ensure financial stability. Further research into tailored resolution approaches can provide valuable insights for banks facing diverse NPA challenges.

Dealing with NPAs: Lessons from International Experiences

Regenerate the following by completely removing palgiarism and making this as unique content. Write in a simple to understand style and explain with an example: Non Performing Assets (NPAs) have become a significant concern for the banking sector, impacting economic stability and growth. This is of particular concern for a growing economy like India. This article aims to study in detail the concept of Non Performing Assets, its meaning, classification, reasons for increasing NPAs, steps taken to curb its rise and other related concepts.

Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) are a major issue for banks, affecting the economy's stability and growth. This is especially important for a developing country like India. Let's break down the concept of NPAs, their meaning, classification, reasons for their increase, and measures to control them.

What are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs)?

An NPA is a loan or advance for which the principal or interest payment remains overdue for a period of 90 days. In simpler terms, it's a loan that the borrower has stopped repaying.

Classification of NPAs

NPAs are classified into three categories:

1. Substandard Assets: Loans that have been non-performing for less than 12 months.

2. Doubtful Assets: Loans that have been non-performing for more than 12 months.

3. Loss Assets: Loans that are considered uncollectible and have little value, or 100% provisioning has been made as per RBI guidelines or are not having adequate securities at realizable value.

Reasons for Increasing NPAs

Several factors contribute to the rise in NPAs:

• Economic Slowdown: A sluggish economy can lead to businesses failing to repay loans.

• Pandemic:  Like Crorona-2019 crippled the economies worldwide and the businesses have to be remained closed for 2 - 2.5 years (during 2019 - 21).

• War, Economic sanctions & Disturbances:  War or war like situation, also disturbs the domestic and international trade.

• Demonetization:  When some currency is changed or withdrawn this adversely affects the cash flow of a business.

• Poor handling by Banks or Bureaucratic approach in Banks failing at early stages to provide financial support and remedies by way of loan rephasement, loan restructuring or reducing or remission of interest purdon, to assist the sick industry:  When Banks fail due to poor decision making mechanism to understand the needs of going sick businesses, ultimately this leads to NPA.

• Failure on part of Government agencies to timely disburse subsidies, release payments to the business units dependent on government supply and to refund the tax or GST etc. amounts becoming due for refund.

• Poor Credit Appraisal: Inadequate assessment of borrowers' creditworthiness.

• Diversion of Funds: Borrowers using loans for purposes other than those for which they were sanctioned.

• External Factors: Natural disasters, market fluctuations, and changes in government policies.

• Vulnerable Digital Security :  If the Computer system / software of a Bank or a borrower company is vulnerable and security features not updated and employees not get regular training and surprise checks from back end, any big cyber fraud may cripple the system, if the loss is too high, this may lead the Company unable to serve its loan installments and turn them into NPA Accounts.

Steps to Curb NPAs

For curbing the NPAs, it is the duty of Government, RBI (the regulator), the Banks and the Corporates to shake hands and the innovative and experienced think-tanks be taken into loop to plug the loop-holes in the Financial systems.   The approach should not be bureaucratic, but it should be an objective approach.  The Banks or NBFCs not adhering to the regulatory guidelines for digital security and prevention or fraud must be dealt with stern action and penalties by the RBI.   Most of the steps can be found in the above para briefing the Reasons for increasing NPA in India.  However, to reduce NPAs, banks and financial institutions can take several measures:

• Improved Credit Appraisal: Better assessment of borrowers' ability to repay loans.

• Regular Monitoring: Keeping a close watch on loan accounts to detect early signs of stress.

• Restructuring Loans: Offering flexible repayment options to borrowers facing temporary financial difficulties.

• Political Loan Waiver:  The partial or full loan waiver or interest on loan waiver is not bad, if it is economically logical and justified.  But, to do this blindly on political considerations spoil the public habits and expectations from the government, and they voluntarily stop payment of loans hoping that the loan will be waived near elections.  This increases the NPA and weakens the economy.

• Legal Actions: Using legal frameworks like the SARFAESI Act to recover dues.

Example

Imagine a small business owner who takes a loan to expand their shop. Due to an economic downturn, their sales drop, and they struggle to repay the loan. If the repayment is overdue for more than 90 days, the loan becomes an NPA. The bank can then classify it as a substandard asset and take steps to recover the money, such as restructuring the loan or taking legal action.

By understanding NPAs and taking proactive measures, banks can help maintain economic stability and support growth.

Conclusion

As the banking sector in India grapples with the pressing challenge of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs), it becomes imperative to draw from international experiences to devise effective strategies for management and reduction. Lessons from countries that have successfully tackled similar dilemmas reveal innovative frameworks and best practices, allowing banks to enhance their operational efficiency and financial health.

At this crucial juncture, banks in India must consider collaborating with experts who understand the complexities of NPAs. 'NPA Doctor' offers tailored consultations that leverage global insights to help financial institutions navigate their NPA challenges effectively.

By partnering with 'NPA Doctor,' banks can implement proven solutions, reduce their NPA accounts, and ultimately contribute to a more robust banking ecosystem in India. Don't miss the opportunity to transform your approach to NPAs; contact 'NPA Doctor' today for a consultation that could redefine your bank's future.

Banking Ombudsman Scheme

The Banking Ombudsman Scheme is a significant initiative by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to address grievances of bank customers. This scheme provides an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for resolving complaints related to banking services.

What is the Banking Ombudsman Scheme?

• Introduced by RBI in 1995: The scheme allows customers to lodge complaints against banks for issues such as non-payment or delay in the payment or collection of cheques, drafts, bills, non-acceptance of small denomination notes, and non-issuance of drafts.

• Revisions: The scheme has undergone several revisions to enhance its effectiveness.

How Does the Scheme Work?

1. Filing a Complaint: Customers can file a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman if they are not satisfied with the resolution provided by their bank. The complaint can be filed online, via email, or through a physical application.

2. Processing the Complaint: The Banking Ombudsman reviews the complaint and seeks a response from the concerned bank. The bank is required to provide its response within a specified timeframe.

3. Resolution: The Banking Ombudsman attempts to resolve the complaint through mutual agreement between the customer and the bank. If a mutual agreement is not possible, the Ombudsman can pass an award, which is binding on the bank.

Benefits of the Scheme

• Accessibility: The scheme is accessible to all bank customers, including individuals, small businesses, and non-profit organizations.

• Cost-Effective: There are no fees for filing a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman.

• Time-Bound: The scheme ensures that complaints are resolved within a reasonable timeframe.

Recent Updates: The Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021

The Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, integrates the existing three Ombudsman schemes of RBI:

1. The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006

2. The Ombudsman Scheme for Non-Banking Financial Companies, 2018

3. The Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions, 2019

Salient Features of the Integrated Scheme

• One Nation One Ombudsman: The scheme adopts a jurisdiction-neutral approach, making it easier for complainants to file complaints without identifying the specific scheme.

• Deficiency in Service: The scheme defines 'deficiency in service' as the ground for filing a complaint, with a specified list of exclusions.

• Centralized Receipt and Processing Centre: A Centre has been set up at RBI, Chandigarh, for receipt and initial processing of complaints in any language.

• Principal Nodal Officer: The responsibility of representing the regulated entity and furnishing information in respect of complaints filed by customers would be that of the Principal Nodal Officer in the rank of a General Manager in a Public Sector Bank or equivalent.

• No Right to Appeal: The regulated entity will not have the right to appeal in cases where an award is issued by the ombudsman against it for not furnishing satisfactory and timely information/documents.

Filing a Complaint

• Online: Complaints can be filed online on the CMS portal.

• Email: Complaints can also be filed via email.

• Physical Mode: Complaints can be sent in physical mode to the Centralised Receipt and Processing Centre at Reserve Bank of India, 4th Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh - 160017.

• Contact Centre: A toll-free number – 14448 (9:30 am to 5:15 pm) – is operational in Hindi, English, and eight regional languages.

FAQ on Banking Ombudsman Scheme of RBI

Q1: What types of complaints can be filed under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme?

A1: Complaints related to non-payment or delay in the payment or collection of cheques, drafts, bills, non-acceptance of small denomination notes, non-issuance of drafts, and other banking services can be filed under the scheme.

Q2: How can a customer file a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman?

A2: A customer can file a complaint online, via email, or through a physical application.

Q3: Is there any fee for filing a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman?

A3: No, there are no fees for filing a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman.

Q4: What happens if the complaint is not resolved through mutual agreement?

A4: If the complaint is not resolved through mutual agreement, the Banking Ombudsman can pass an award, which is binding on the bank.

Directors' Liability in Cheque Bounce: Negotiable Instruments Act

In recent years, the question of directors' liability in cases of bounced cheques issued by their companies has been a topic of significant legal debate in India. This article explores the evolving jurisprudence on this issue, focusing on key Supreme Court and High Court judgments that have shaped the interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The Legal Framework

Section 138 of the NI Act criminalizes the issuance of cheques that are dishonored due to insufficient funds. Section 141 extends this liability to company directors and other responsible persons. However, recent court rulings have significantly clarified the scope and application of these provisions.

Key Principles Established by the Courts

1. Mere Designation is Insufficient

The Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated February 24, 2025, emphasized that simply holding the title of director does not automatically incur liability under the NI Act. The court found that without specific allegations proving involvement in the company's business or the issuance of the dishonored cheque, directors could not be held vicariously liable under Section 141 [Source: Delhi High Court judgment in Adarsh Saran & Anr. v. Central Bank of India, CRL.M.C. 4497/2019].

2. Specific Allegations Required

The Supreme Court, in SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. (2005), laid down that complaints must specifically allege that the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time the cheque was issued. General statements are insufficient to establish liability [Source: (2005) 8 SCC 89].

3. Role-Based Liability

The Supreme Court clarified that liability arises not from the title but from the role played in the company's operations. Managing Directors or Joint Managing Directors, by virtue of their roles, are presumed to be in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct [Source: Supreme Court judgment, citation not provided in search results].

4. Company as Principal Offender

In a landmark ruling on December 27, 2024, the Supreme Court held that directors cannot be prosecuted for criminal liability if a cheque bounces unless the company itself is arraigned as an accused. The court emphasized that the company must first be held as the principal offender under Section 138 before extending culpability to directors [Source: Supreme Court judgment, reported in The Telegraph, December 27, 2024].

5. Personal Loans and Company Cheques

On December 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that a director signing a company cheque for a personal loan is not liable under Section 138 if it bounces. The court stressed that the cheque must be drawn from an account maintained by the person themselves for liability to attach [Source: Times of India, December 21, 2024].

Exceptions to Director's Liability

Directors may avoid liability, if:

1. The offence occurred without their knowledge.

2. They exercised all due diligence to prevent it.

3. They were not responsible for the day-to-day activities at the time the cheque was issued.

Implications for Corporate Governance

These rulings have significant implications for corporate governance in India. They protect non-executive and independent directors from frivolous litigation while ensuring that those truly responsible for a company's financial decisions are held accountable.

Conclusion

The evolving jurisprudence on directors' liability in cheque bounce cases reflects a nuanced approach by Indian courts. While upholding the spirit of the NI Act in preventing financial fraud, the courts have also recognized the need to protect innocent directors from undue harassment. Companies and directors must remain vigilant about their roles and responsibilities to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.

FAQ

Directors' Liability in Cheque Bounce Cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act

Q1: Can all directors of a company be held liable for a bounced cheque?

A: No, not all directors are automatically liable. Only those who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence can be held liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Q2: What specific allegations must a complaint contain to hold a director liable?

A: The complaint must clearly state how and in what manner the director was responsible for the company's business operations when the cheque was issued and dishonored.

Q3: Are non-executive directors exempt from liability in cheque bounce cases?

A: Generally, yes. Non-executive directors are usually not involved in day-to-day operations and are less likely to be held liable unless there's specific evidence of their involvement in the offence.

Q4: Can a director be held liable if they've resigned before the cheque was dishonored?

A: If a director can prove they resigned before the cheque was dishonored and were not involved in the company's operations at the time, they are likely to avoid liability.

Q5: What defenses can a director use to avoid liability in a cheque bounce case?

A: Directors can argue that:

• They had no knowledge of the offence

• They exercised due diligence to prevent it

• They were not responsible for the company's day-to-day operations

• The complaint doesn't meet the requirements of Sections 138 or 141 of the NI Act

Q6: Does signing the dishonored cheque automatically make a director liable?

A: While signing the cheque doesn't automatically create liability, it significantly increases the likelihood of being held responsible, especially if the director was involved in the company's financial decisions.

Q7: Can a company be prosecuted without its directors in a cheque bounce case?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the company, as the principal offender, must be arraigned as an accused before its directors can be prosecuted for criminal liability.

Q8: What is the punishment for directors found guilty in cheque bounce cases?

A: If found guilty, directors can face imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine of twice the cheque amount, or both, as per Section 138 of the NI Act.

#DirectorLiability #ChequeBounce #NegotiableInstrumentsAct #CorporateGovernance #Legal

#SupremeCourtRulings #Section138 #Section141 #CompanyLaw #FinancialFraud #LegalCompliance

This article is for academic awareness only and not for court citations. Consult a lawyer for legal matters.

By: Adv. Shakti Kumar Jain, LL.B. (Gold Medalist)

NPA Resolution in India: RBI Guidelines, DRT, OTS & SARFAESI Act for SMEs

NPA Accounts Resolution in North India: How SMEs in HP, J&K, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi & Rajasthan Can Use RBI Guidelines, DRT, OTS & SARFAESI Act to Recover Loans & Avoid Asset Auction

Introduction
Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) cripple SMEs, but remedies like RBI’s restructuring norms, DRT, OTS, and the SARFAESI Act offer lifelines. This guide simplifies legal jargon for businesses in HP, J&K, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and neighboring states.

(Source: RBI Master Circular on NPA, 2023)

1. Understanding NPAs: RBI’s 90-Day Rule

• Definition of NPA: A loan becomes a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) when the borrower fails to repay principal or interest for 90 days or more.

• RBI’s Classification:

  • Substandard Asset: NPA for less than 12 months.

  • Doubtful Asset: NPA for 12+ months with high recovery uncertainty.

  • Loss Asset: Considered uncollectible (written off by banks).

• Why 90 Days?

  • Ensures banks identify bad loans early and take corrective action.

  • Prevents evergreening (banks disguising NPAs by issuing fresh loans).

• Impact on Borrowers:

  • Credit score damage, higher interest on future loans.

  • Legal action (SARFAESI, DRT) if not resolved.

• Case Reference:

  • Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Himachal Pradesh SME (2022) – Court upheld RBI’s 90-day rule, stressing transparency in NPA declaration.

• SME Solution:

  • Restructure loans before 90-day mark (via RBI’s prudential norms).

  • Negotiate One-Time Settlement (OTS) if already NPA.

(Sources: RBI Master Circular on NPA, 2023; Judicial precedents)

2. Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT):

Speed vs. Delays
Purpose: Resolve high-value NPA cases (claims above ₹10 lakhs) outside civil courts.

• Promised Speed: Designed to settle cases within 180 days (per DRT Act).

• Ground Reality:

  • Delays average 2–5 years in states like Rajasthan/Haryana due to:

    • Judge shortages, Backlog and Procedural loopholes (e.g., adjournment abuse).

  • Fast-Track Options:

    • Opt for pre-DRT mediation (now mandatory in Punjab/Chandigarh).

The primary goal of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) is to ensure swift and effective resolution of disputes related to debt recovery for banks and financial institutions. These specialized bodies aim to streamline the adjudication process, enabling faster recovery of dues. By focusing on expeditious proceedings, DRTs and DRATs reduce the burden on traditional courts. They provide a dedicated mechanism to address the disputes between Banks and borrowers.

• Clarifying DRT Rules for SMEs: Key Corrections

  1. DRT Jurisdiction & Thresholds

  • Myth: "DRTs resolve only high-value cases (>₹20 lakhs)."

    • Fact: DRTs handle all secured debt recovery cases above ₹10 lakhs (post-2016 amendment to Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993).

    • Exception: Cases below ₹10 lakhs go to Civil Courts or Lok Adalats.

• 2. SME Advantages in DRT Proceedings

  • Court Fees:

    • False Claim: "No court fees for claims under ₹10 lakhs."

    • Truth: SMEs pay reduced fees (not zero) for filing cases:

      • 0.5% of claim amount (capped at ₹25,000) vs. standard 1–2%.

      • Source: DRT (Procedure) Rules, 2014.

  • Burden of Proof:

    • Clarification: While banks must prove the debt exists (loan agreement, default notices), borrowers must challenge evidence (e.g., dispute amount, fraud claims).

    • Case Law: ICICI Bank vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies (2018) – Banks must submit original documents; oral arguments aren’t proof.

  3. Why Misinformation Spreads

  • Older blogs cite pre-2016 thresholds (₹20 lakhs).

  • Fee waivers apply to micro-enterprises (under MSME Act), not all SMEs.

    Actionable Insight for SMEs

  • Use pre-litigation mediation (now mandatory in Punjab/Haryana DRTs) to avoid fees.

  • Download free DRT response templates from NPADoctor.com to counter bank claims.

Pro Tip: File a writ petition under Article 226 if DRT delays exceed 6 months (State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Traders, Delhi HC, 2021).

3. One-Time Settlement (OTS):

Negotiating with Banks

OTS allows partial repayment to close NPA accounts. Normally the Banks may at their option and policy decisions, allow hair-cut to the borrowers and guarantors for full or partial amount of interest. The factors like, age of NPA, Securities available, value of securities, other disputes and probability for recovery by other routes are the key points of decision making by the Banks. Some times, some Banks come out with structured OTS Schemes, for which letters are sent to all the eligbible NPA borrowers, normally these schemes are non-discretionary and close ended.

Template: Download OTS Application Draft (Credits: NPADoctor.com)

4. SARFAESI Act: Bypassing Court Delays

The SARFAESI Act empowers banks to auction secured assets without court intervention. Key steps:

1. 60-day notice under Section 13(2).

2. Physical possession under Section 14.

Landmark Judgment: Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India (2004) – Upheld SARFAESI’s validity but mandated fair notice.

5. How NPADoctor.com Can Help

• Free NPA health check for SMEs.

• Ground Experience of working in Stressed Assets Managements specialized outfit in SBI.

• Custom OTS negotiation scripts.

• Connect with DRT lawyers in Delhi/Chandigarh/J&K.

FAQs

Q1. Can a bank auction my property without notice?
No. SARFAESI Act mandates a 60-day notice period u/s. 13(2) and 30-day notice period before auction u/s. 13(4).

Q2. Is OTS better than DRT?
Yes, if you seek faster closure to disputes, amicable settlement by way of OTS is the best option for both i.e., the Bank and the Borrower. In suit filed cases in DRT, a consent decree application is moved jointly signed and supported by affidavits by both the disputing parties, after they reach consensus to OTS Agreement.

Q3. How to stop SARFAESI action?
Theoretical answer is to File a Section 17 appeal in DRT within 45 days of notice, if you (the borrowers and guarantors have the very strong law points.)

Citations

• RBI Master Circular on NPA, 2023 [Link]

• Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India (2004) [Link]

(Blog crafted by NPADoctor.com with insights from RBI and judicial precedents. Last updated: April 2024.)