ATUL NANDA Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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:

(3.) 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.