NATIONAL  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION NEW  DELHI

 

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  NO.            82             OF             2006

 

Atul Nanda & Anr.                                               …      Complainants

Versus

Reserve Bank of India & Ors.                            …      Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE :

                   HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  M.B. SHAH,  PRESIDENT

                   MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO,  MEMBER

 

 

For the Complainant    :         Mr.Atul Nanda, Ms.Rameeza Hakeem

and Mr.Anjaneya Mishra, Advocates

 

For the Opp. Parties    :         Ms.Sudha Sharma, Advocate for OP 1

 

Mr.Amrendra Saran, ASG for OP 2

 

Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate for Opp.Parties 3,18,21,36,37,38,39,41,43,69

 

Ms.Mamta Jha, Advocate for Mr. Ashutosh Verma, Advocate for OP 5, 14

 

Mr.P.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for OP 6

 

Mr.Pradeep Dewan and Mr.Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocates for OP 8

 

Mr.Shailendra Ojha, Advocate for Mr.

Aditya Madan, Advocate for OP 9

 

Mr. S.Sachin, Advocate for OP 11

 

Mr. Arvind Wishwabandhu, Advocate for

Mr.Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Advocate for OP 12

 

Mr.Ranbir Singh, Advocate for OP 13

 

Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate for OP 15

 

Mr. H.D. Talwani, Advocate for OP 17

 

Mr.Anshu Mahajan, Advocate for OP 19

 

Mr.Nilesh Sharma, Advocate for OP 22, 32 and 57

 

Ms.Varsha Kriplani, Advocate for OP 23, 29, 83

 

Mr.Dharam Dev, Advocate for OP 25, 55

 

Mr.Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for OP 26

 

Mr. S.S. Salooja, Advocate for OP 27

 

Mr.V. Mohana, Advocate for OP 28

 

Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate for OP 30 and 33

 

Mr.Vineet Chandra Sharma, Advocate for OP 31

 

Ms.Sangeeta Gupta, Advocate for OP 34

 

Mr.P.S. Shetty, Advocate for OP 35

 

Ms.Deepti, Advocate for Mr.P.I. Jose,

Advocate for OP 40 and 47

 

Mr. S.K. Garg, Advocate for OP 45

 

Mr.V.K.Shailendra, Advocate for OP 46

 

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for OP 48

 

Mr.Devendra Sain, Advocate for OP 49

 

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr.K.D. Naik, Manager of OP 51

 

Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate for OP 52

 

Mr.P.Chandrasekharan, Advocate for OP 53

 

Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate for OP 60

 

Mr.____________, for OP 62

 

Mr.Vipin Nandwani, Advocate for OP 77

 

Mr.Manish Khandelwal, Advocate for OP 79

 

Mr.Amit Singh Chadha, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ajay Saroya and Mr.Arvind Gupta, Advocates for OP 86

 

Ms.Surekha Raman, Advocate for OP 88 and 90

 

                                     

11.10.2006

 

O R D E R

 

          The complainant in person submits that because of the voluminous documents, he has prepared CDs and the CDs would be handed-over to each of the learned counsel appearing for different banks.  He has handed-over a CD to the Additional Solicitor General, Mr.Amrendra Saran, for assisting the Commission in arriving at a proper decision.  RBI and Union of India to file their written version within a period of 15 days from today.  It would be open to the learned counsel for the rest of the respondents to obtain copies of the said written version from the Registrar.  By filing simple application, Xerox copy of the same would be immediately handed-over to the respondents without any delay.

          Stand over to 9th November 2006 for directions and/or hearing.

 

 

 

 

……………………………………….J.

( M.B.  SHAH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

…………………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO)

MEMBER

/sra/  15  / Court-1

NATIONAL  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

NEW  DELHI

 

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  NO.            82             OF             2006

 

Atul Nanda & Anr.                                                  …        Complainants

Versus

Reserve Bank of India & Ors.                              …        Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE :

                        HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  M.B. SHAH,  PRESIDENT

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO,  MEMBER

 

 

For the Complainant         :           Mr.Atul Nanda, Ms.Rameeza Hakeem

and Mr.Anjaneya Mishra, Advocates

 

For the Opp. Parties          :           Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate for

Mr.Amrendra Sharan, ASG as amicus

curiae

 

Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate for Opp.Parties 3,18,21,36,37,38,39,41,43,69

 

Ms.Suman Tripathy, Advocate for OP 5, 10, 14 with Ms.Rama Arora, Sr.Manager (Law) of OP 10

 

Mr.P.B. Aggarwala and Ms.Praveena Gautam, Advocates for OP 6, 60

 

Mr.Pradeep Dewan and Mr.Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocates for OP 8

 

Mr.Rohit Madan, Advocate for OP 9

 

Mr. S.Sunita, Advocate for OP 11

 

Mr. Arvind Wishwabandhu, Advocate and Mr.Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Advocate for OP 12

 

Mr.Kunal Tandon and Mr.Rambir Singh, Advocates for OP 13

 

Mr. R.N. Ront, Advocate for OP 15

 

Mr.Saran Suri, Advocate for OP 16

 

Mr.Anshu Mahajan, Advocate for OP 19

 

Mr.Sunil Narula, Advocate for OP 20

 

Mr.Brijesh Anand, Advocate for OP 22, 32 and 57

 

Ms.Ateev Mathur, Advocate for OP 23, 29, 83

 

Mr.Dharam Dev, Advocate for OP 25, 55

 

Ms.Nidhi Das, Advocate for OP 26

 

Mr. S.S. Salooja, Advocate for OP 27

 

Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate for OP 30 and 33

 

Mr.P.S. Shetty, Advocate for OP 35

 

Ms.Deepti, Advocate for Mr.P.I. Jose,

Advocate for OP 40 and 47

 

Mr. S.N. Bhat, Advocate for OP 44

 

Mr. S.K. Garg, Advocate for OP 45

 

Mr.V.K.Shailendra, Advocate for OP 46

 

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for OP 48

 

Mr.Devendra Sain, Advocate for OP 49

 

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr.K.D. Naik, Manager of OP 51

 

Mr. J. Pradhan & Mr. K.P. Menon, Advocates for OP 52

 

Mr.R.R. Mani and Mr. K.B. Sandeep, Advocates for OP 54

 

Mr. Mahip Datta, for OP 63

 

Mr.Anupam Verma, Advocate for OP 67

 

Mr.Dhiraj Mishra and Mr. Nirmal Mishra,

Advocates for OP 76

 

Mr.Syed Naqvi and Ms.Smieetaa Inna, Advocates for OP 77

 

Mr.Manish Khandelwal, Advocate for OP 79

 

Mr.Amit Singh Chadha, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ajay Saroya and Mr.Arvind Gupta, Advocates for OP 86

 

Ms.Surekha Raman, Advocate for OP 88 and 90

 

                                               

09.11.2006

 

O R D E R

 

            Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

            Learned counsel, Mr.Amit S. Chadha, appearing on behalf of O.P. No.86 (J.P. Morgan Chase Bank) submits that O.P. No.86 is not carrying out any retail banking business.  He, therefore, submits that there was no necessity of joining O.P. No.86 as a party respondent.  Considering the aforesaid submission, application for deleting O.P. No.86 is granted.

            It is the contention of the complainant that despite the various Committee Reports, appropriate action is not taken by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) with regard to recommendation for introduction of policy to curtail Banks’ enjoyment of float funds.  Relevant part of the same is as under :

“Need for introduction of policies to curtail bank’s enjoyment of float :

 

The need for passing the interest benefits to payees on their cheque proceeds once the payee’s bank (and not payees’ account) receives credit from the drawee bank is of significant consequence.  No passing of such interest benefits to the customers allows the banks to enjoy float and leads to undue enrichment of banks at the cost of their customers.  Presently, as per data available (See Appendix C), in one year nearly 13,000 lakh cheques are cleared attributing to a total amount of more than Rs.1,13,37,000 crores.  Giving benefit of doubt to banks and considering that for at most 50% of the cheques banks are not enjoying any kind of float, it would mean that on an average the banking sector enriches itself (at the cost of its customers) to the tune of at least one days interest on at least 56,68,500 crores.  On this one-day’s interest, even at a conservative rate of interest of 4% per annum, amounts to more than Rs.621 crores.  In fact the empirical study presented in Section 5 indicates that, on an average, the float enjoyed by banks is 4 and 6 days (while they take 11 and 16 days for collecting cheques) for metro and state capital respectively.  For other centers it would be anybody’s guess what the float period could be!

The totality of huge float being enjoyed by banks is actually an unaccounted credit taken from the depositors without their explicit consent.  The vital question here is why are the banks being allowed to enjoy even one-day’s float?”

 

            He further submitted that the vital question, why the Banks are being allowed to enjoy even one day’s float, is required to be answered by RBI.  For this purpose, the complainant submits that RBI itself has issued circular dated 1.11.2004 to all the Scheduled Commercial Banks, wherein it is stated as under :

“Adequate care also may be taken to ensure that the interests of the small depositors are fully protected.  The policy framed in this regard should be integrated with the deposit policy formulated by the bank in line with the IBA’s model deposit policy.  The policy should clearly lay down the liability of the banks by way of interest payments due to delays for non-compliance with the standards set by the banks themselves.  Compensation by way of interest payment, where necessary, should be made without any claim from the customer.”

 

            The complainant submits that this particular part is still not implemented by various Banks. 

As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Banks submit that at least 80 Banks have formulated their own policy and are following the same.   They have produced a note issued by Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) wherein it is contended that the data given by the complainant is incorrect.

Prima facie, it appears that even though the Banks have formulated their own policy with regard to float fund, credit is not given to the payee immediately and the interest thereon is also not paid and, hence, the Banks enjoy the said fund without paying any interest.

Considering the aforesaid aspect, Central Government and RBI are directed to state on affidavit as to what steps can be taken for minimizing the loss to the consumers because of the floating fund.  Further, RBI should state on affidavit whether the Guidelines issued by it are properly implemented by the Banks by framing reasonable policies in conformity with the Guidelines.

Some of the officers of different Banks, who are present in the Court submits that with regard to the local clearance of cheque, as soon as the cheque is presented/deposited for clearance with the Bank, credit is given but the funds are not allowed to be withdrawn till the amount is received by the Bank and, therefore, there is no loss of interest to the customer.

Prima facie, it is apparent that this policy followed by some Banks is required to be uniformly adopted by rest of the Banks.

Stand over to 5th December 2006 for further directions.

 

 

 

……………………………………….J.

( M.B.  SHAH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

…………………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO)

MEMBER

/sra/  18  / Court-1

NATIONAL  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

NEW  DELHI

 

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  NO.            82             OF             2006

 

Atul Nanda & Anr.                                                  …        Complainants

Versus

Reserve Bank of India & Ors.                              …        Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE :

                        HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  M.B. SHAH,  PRESIDENT

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO,  MEMBER

 

 

For the Complainant         :           Mr.Anjaneya Mishra, Advocate for

                                                            Mr.Atul Nanda, Ms.Rameeza Hakeem,

                                                            Advocates

 

For the Opp. Parties          :           Mr.C.Mukund and Mr.Shashank Sharma,

Advocates for OP 1

 

Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate for Opp.Parties 3,18,21,36,37,38,39,41,43,69

 

Mr.Harsh Jha and Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Advocates for OP 4

 

Ms.Suman Tripathy and Mr.Ashutosh Verma, Advocates for OP 5, 10, 14

 

Mr.P.B. Aggarwala and Ms.Praveena Gautam, Advocates for OP 6, 60

 

Mr.V.K. Tandon, Advocate for OP 7

 

Mr.Pradeep Dewan and Mr.Anupam Dhingra, Advocates for OP 8

 

Mr.Rohit Madan, Advocate for OP 9

 

Ms.Ruma Arora, Advocate for OP 10

 

Mr. S.Sunita, Advocate for OP 11

Mr. Arvind Wishwabandhu and Mr.Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Advocates for OP 12

 

Mr.Kunal Tandon and Mr.Rambir Singh, Advocates for OP 13

 

Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate for OP 15

 

Mr.Saran Suri, Advocate for OP 16

 

Mr.H.D. Talwani, Advocate for OP 17

 

Mr.Anshu Mahajan, Advocate for OP 19

 

Mr.Sunil Narula, Manager (Law) for OP 20

 

Mr.Nilesh Sharma, Advocate for OP 22, 32 and 57

 

Ms.Varsha Kriplani, Advocate for OP 23, 29, 83

 

Mr.Dharam Dev, Advocate for OP 25, 55

 

Mr.Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for OP 26

 

Mr. S.S. Salooja, Advocate for OP 27

 

Mr.V.Mohana, Advocate for OP 28

 

Mr.Himanshu Mitra, Advocate for OP 30 and 33

 

Mr.P.S. Shetty, Advocate for OP 35

 

Ms.Deepti and Mr.P.I. Jose,

Advocates for OP 40 and 47

 

Mr. D.P.Chaturvedi, Advocate for OP 44

 

Mr. S.K. Garg, Advocate for OP 45

 

Mr.V.K.Shailendra and Ms.Neha Cowshish, Advocate for OP 46

 

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for OP 48

 

Mr.Devendra Sain, Advocate for OP 49

 

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr.K.D. Naik, Manager of OP 51

 

Mr. J. Pradhan for Mr. K.P. Menon and Mr.P.Chandrasekhar, Advocates for OP 52

 

Mr.Shankh Sengupta, Advocate for OP 67

 

Mr.Dhiraj Mishra and Mr. Nirmal Mishra,

Advocates for OP 76

 

Mr.Syed Naqvi and Ms.Smieetaa Inna, Advocates for OP 77

 

Mr.Manish Khandelwal, Advocate for OP 79

 

Ms.Surekha Raman, Advocate for OP 88 and 90

5.12.2006

 

ORDER

 

Considering the affidavit submitted by Reserve Bank of India (RBI), it appears that RBI is taking appropriate steps in the proper direction.  As per the affidavit, before end of March, 2007, the necessary action would be taken so that delay in clearing the cheque would be minimum and in any case minimize to not more than 24 hours.

 

          Meantime, RBI is directed to publish the steps which are taken and which are contemplated to be taken so that ordinary consumer is made aware and if there is some delay at the hands of the Banks, they can draw the attention of the concerned Bank.

 

          The affidavit which is filed by the RBI shall be placed on RBI Website.

 

          Adjourned to 19.2.2007 at 2.30 p.m. for direction.

 

 

 

……………………………………….J.

( M.B.  SHAH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

…………………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO)

MEMBER

/SG/ 15  /Court-1

NATIONAL  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

NEW  DELHI

 

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  NO.            82             OF             2006

 

Atul Nanda & Anr.                                                  …        Complainants

Versus

Reserve Bank of India & Ors.                              …        Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE :

                        HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  M.B. SHAH,  PRESIDENT

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO,  MEMBER

 

For the Complainant         :           Mr.Atul Nanda, Advocate

 

For the Opp. Parties          :           Mr.C.Mukund, Advocate with Ms. Neeraj,

 Advocate  for OP 1

 

Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate &  Mr.   R.K. Dikshit Advocate for Opp. Parties 3,18,21,36,37,38,39,41,43,69

 

Mr.Harsh Jha and Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Advocates for OP 4

 

Ms.Suman Tripathy and Mr.Ashutosh Verma, & Ms. Mamta Jha, Advocates for OP 5, 10, 14

 

Mr.P.B. Aggarwala and Ms.Praveena Gautam, Advocates for OP 6, 60

 

Mr.V.K. Tandon, Advocate for OP 7

 

Mr.Pradeep Dewan and Mr.Anupam Dhingra, Advocates for OP 8

 

Mr.Rohit Madan, Advocate for OP 9

 

Ms.Ruma Arora, Advocate for OP 10

 

 

- 2-

 

Mr. S.Sunita, Advocate for OP 11

 

Mr. Arvind Wishwabandhu and Mr.Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Advocates for OP 12

 

Mr. Rambir Singh, Advocates for OP 13

 

Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate for OP 15

 

Mr.Saran Suri, Advocate for OP 16

 

Mr.H.D. Talwani, Advocate for OP 17

 

Mr.Anshu Mahajan, Advocate for OP 19

 

Mr.Sunil Narula, Manager (Law) for OP 20

 

Ms. Anisha Singh, Advocate for OP 22, 32 and 57

 

Mr. Pravin Kumar,  for OP 23, 29, 83

 

Mr.Dharam Dev, Advocate for OP 25, 55

 

Mr. Nitin Khare, Advocate for OP 26

 

Mr. S.S. Salooja, Advocate for OP 27

 

Mr.V.Mohana,  Advocate for OP 28

 

Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate for OP 30 and 33

 

Mr.P.S. Shetty, Advocate for OP 35

 

Ms.Deepti and Mr.P.I. Jose,

Advocates for OP 40 and 47

 

Ms. Mayuri Kacker, Advocate for Mr. S.N. Bhatt, Advocate for OP 44

 

Mr. S.K. Garg, Advocate for OP 45

 

- 3-

 

Mr.V.K.Shailendra and Ms.Neha, Advocate and Mr. Subhro Sanyal for OP 46

 

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for OP 48

 

Mr.Devendra Sain, Advocate for OP 49

 

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr. K.D. Naik, Manager of OP 51

 

Mr. J. Pradhan for Mr. K.P. Menon and Mr.P.Chandrasekhar, Advocates for OP 52

 

Mr.Menne A., Advocate for OP 54

 

Mr. Majoj A. Advocate & Ms. Seem Gupta, Advocate  for OP 56

 

Mr. M. Datta, Advocate for OP 63

 

Mr.Shankh Sengupta, Advocate for OP 67

 

Ms. Nirmal Mishra, Advocates for OP 76

 

Mr.Syed Naqvi and Ms.Smieetaa Inna, Advocates for OP 77

 

Mr.Manish Khandelwal, Advocate for OP 79

 

Ms.Surekha Raman, Advocate for OP 88 and 90

 

Mr. Kunal Tandon, Indian Overseas Bank

 

Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for American Express Bank

 

Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate for O.B.I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 4-

 

20.02.2007

ORDER

 

            All the Banks who are appearing before this Commission are directed to file affidavit, comprising not more than one or two pages,  with regard to the procedure followed by them in respect of clearance of local cheques,  particularly date of giving credit and/or date of debiting the account.  For the outstation cheques, order would be passed separately.

            Modification application will  be decided subsequently.

            It would be open to the complainant to file affidavit, if required.

            Adjourned to 5.3.2007 at 2.30 p.m. for argument.

 

 

……………………………………J.

(M.B. SHAH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

………………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

MEMBER

SG/26

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO.82   OF    2006

 

Atul Nanda and another                                                               …  Complainants

Versus

Reserve Bank of India and others                                             … Opp. Parties

 

BEFORE :

                        HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER

 

For the Complainant         :           Mr.Atul Nanda, Advocate with

                                                            Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Advocate

 

For the Opp. Parties          :           Mr.C.Mukund, Advocate with Ms. Neeraj,

 Advocate  for OP 1

 

And others

05th March 2007

 

ORDER

 

             Learned counsel appearing on behalf of many of the Banks seek 15 days time for filing the affidavits as ordered by this Commission on 20th February 2007.  Copies of the affidavits which are filed or to be filed shall be given to the counsel for the Reserve Bank of India.

            Office to keep these affidavits in a proper bunch.

            Stand over to 09th April, 2007 at 2.30 PM.

 

 

……………………………………J.

(M.B. SHAH)

PRESIDENT

 

……………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

MEMBER

Satish/21

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO.82   OF    2006

 

Atul Nanda and another                                               …  Complainants

 

Versus

 

Reserve Bank of India and others                              … Opp. Parties

 

BEFORE :

 

                   HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT

                   MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER

 

For the Complainant         :           Mr.Atul Nanda, Advocate with

                                                            Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Advocate

 

For the Opp. Parties          :           Mr.C.Mukund, Advocate with Ms. Neeraj,

 Advocate  for OP 1

 

Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate & Mr.   R.K. Dikshit Advocate for Opp. Parties 3,18,21,36,37,38,39,41,43,69

 

Mr. R. Majumdar, Advocate  for OP 5, 10, 14

 

Ms. Praveena Gautam, Advocates for OP 6, 60

 

Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for

Mr.V.K. Tandon, Advocate for OP 7

 

Mr.Pradeep Dewan, Mr.Anupam Dhingra, Advocate and Mr. R.B. Saniyal, Advocate  for OP 8

 

Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate for OP 9

 

 

 

 

- 2-

 

Mr. R.MB. Subha Raju,  Advocate for OP 11

 

Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Advocate with

Mr. D. Mukherjee,  for OP 12

 

Mr. Rambir Singh, Advocate for OP No.13

 

Mr. Saran Suri, Advocate for Bank of Maharashtra

 

Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocat and Mr. B.N. Patra

Advocate  for OP 15

 

Mr.H.D. Talwani, Advocate for OP 17

 

Mr.Anshu Mahajan, Advocate for OP 19

 

Mr.S.K. Narula, Manager (Law) for OP 20

 

Ms. Anisha Singh, Advocate for OP 22, 32 and 57

 

Ms. Varsh Kriplani, Advocate   for OP 23, 29, 83

 

Mr.Dharam Dev, Advocate for OP 25, 55

 

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate for OP 26

 

Mr. S.S. Salooja, Advocate for OP 27

 

Mr.V.Mohana,  Advocate for OP 28

 

Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate for OP 30 and 33

 

Mr.P.S. Shetty, Advocate for OP 35

 

Ms.Deepti and Mr.P.I. Jose,

Advocates for OP 40 and 47

 

Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate for OP 44

 

Mr. S.K. Garg, Advocate for OP 45

 

- 3-

 

Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Advocate and

Mr. V. Ramakant, Manager (Legal) for OP 46

 

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for OP 48

 

Mr.Devendra Sain, Advocate for OP 49

 

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for OP 51

 

 Mr. P.C. Handa, Advocate for OP 53

 

Mr. K.K. Mani, Advocate for OP 54

 

Ms. Seem Gupta, Advocate  for OP 56

 

Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for OP 63

 

 Ms. Nirmal Mishra, Advocates for OP 76

 

Mr.Syed Naqvi and Ms.Smieetaa Inna, Advocates for OP 77

 

Mr.Manish Khandelwal, Advocate for OP 79

 

Ms.Surekha Raman, Advocate for OP 88 and 90

 

Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate for O.B.I.

 

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for Karur Vysya Bank

 

09.04.2007

 

ORDER

 

           Complainant, Mr. Nanda pointed out that at present only 17 Banks have filed the affidavits with regard to giving of debit to the drawer and credit to the payee, in respect of local cheques, on the same day.

- 4 -

As against this, learned counsel appearing for RBI stated that in all 21 affidavits are received by him.  He submits that after proper verification of the affidavits, RBI would file the necessary affidavit.  Rest of the Banks, who have not filed affidavits, are directed to do so within a period of 15 days from today.

          Adjourned to 21.5.2007 to find out whether RBI can give appropriate directions to the Banks who are not following the system of giving debit to the drawer and credit to the payee on the same day.

 

 

……………………………………J.

(M.B. SHAH)

PRESIDENT

 

……………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

MEMBER

Sg/21