Before proceeding please understand that filing of criminal cases in cheque bounce instances are done under section 138 of NI Act. Before filing a case, the same cheque has to be presented three times. So Banks or any person can not file a case without following the set norms. When you say false cases are being filed by Bank, it means they are manipulating the instrument presented which can be in form of forged sign or material correction which are not allowed otherwise. Please note that in such cases criminal cases can be filed against any such official who has been found rsponsible for these misdeeds. Consult a criminal lawyer if you observed such misdeeds.

Please bear in mind that cases filed under NI act under section 138 are non bailable criminal offence and hence filed after having enough evidence against the person who has issued the instrument.

If a bank was not able to recover a loss such as a bad loan, they would soon not be making loans at all, because that is part of doing business.

Banks loan out some of their money at interest, you might call it an investment on their part. They have to make a profit, that is how their employees are paid and the lights and heat are paid.

If you didn’t pay your home mortgage or your car payment, the bank will simply take your house or your car and sell them to recover what they have invested. They are not interested in your car or house, only what they are owed.

Some loans are signature loans, meaning the only backing or collateral is your good name and credit rating and their past experience dealing with you. If by some misfortune on your part you are not able to pay back the loan, the bank could get a court order to seize your property, you could lose your car or house or other equipment.

Some loan documents already have a means of recovery written into the contract meaning they may not have to go to court to seize the property.

IF THE COMPLAINT IS OF SERIOUS NATURE, TAKE IT TO

the Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India.

Wait for their intervention in the matter. Even if you are not satsiffied after their intervention, you have the option to litigate in a court of law.

If the matter is not of a serious nature, write to the banking Ombudsman within State Bank of India. The ombudsman of any bank ought to work in an impartial and objective manner and I trust that justice will be delivered within the four walls of the STATE BANK OF INDIA.

IF THE MATTER HAS CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS ADDRESS A SUITABLE COMPLAINT TO THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION FOR INVESTIGATION.

REMEMBER, YOU CAN CALL A BOTTLE HALF FULL OR HALF EMPTY.

BOTH ARE CORRECT.

Raghavan AVS

Hi, It is bitter experience for such a thing to happen. First, I would suggest you to collect all the facts and evidences regarding the misuse. As a bank employee is involved, you can approach the branch where your account is and lodge a complaint with the bank. There are many channels in the banking system to lodge your complaint. Every bank has a customer care cell or vigilance department where you can directly lodge the compliant. Suitable action will be taken against the employee.

If you are not happy with the response of the bank, you can always approach the Banking Ombudsman. Please give your complaint in writing or email. When a bank statement is given without your written consent, it is a breach of confidentiality by the employee by which he/she is bound. The bank is bound to take action against the employee.

As for the outsider, you can approach the court of law for justice. Please remember that this is a civil case and may take time to resolve. If the misuse has caused you great harm, then consult a good lawyer who can present your case in a better way.

Hope this helps.

If any violation of guidelines are made by bank officials in sanction of loan, one can make complain to Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, CBI and CVC. Bank can also lodge appropriate complaint in case of fraud with the Police and CBI. Necessary investigation is made by the Police and CBI and after investigation if any official is found accountable action is initiated in the Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus the State can prosecute bank officials if they are found accountable. The public can't initiate any legal action against bank officials except in case of criminal offences as they are protected being public servants and can be prosecuted only after obtaining departmental permission in cases relating to economic offences.

Guarantor of a loan is a person who agrees to repay the borrower's debt should the borrower default on agreed repayments. Hence the the basic point that you need to understand is that, when once a loan account becomes overdue or NPA, borrower and guarantor are practically have no difference and bank can initiate recovery proceedings against any one or both.

Hence bank is very much within its rights to approach guarantor of an overdue loan for the following purposes

1. To exert moral pressure on the borrower to regularize the loan
2. In the event, the resources of the borrower are not adequate to liquidate the loan, then the guarantor will be called upon to repay the loan

In case loan outstanding is recovered to from the guarantor, then he acquires what is known as “Right of Subrogation” under which the guarantor will step into the shoes of the bank and can initiate recovery proceedings against borrower for the amount that he paid to bank

Usually banks resort to guarantor after exhausting their remedies against the borrower.

Summary : On 1 june, i did a recharge of 599 from yono sbi lite to my jio number. It was successful, Money got deducted but no recharge has been reflected till date.

Over a span of 2 months, Have filed 4 complaints but no response. Talked to their executives, no result. One said that recharge was successful from their side and now rest is upto jio. Then tried contacting jio, They said same, Nothing pending, neither they recieved any amount. Went to branch in person, where employee told me that you will not get refund, had an argument talked to manager, he said to write an application and mail him, never heard from him either. Now what legal action could i take against em?

It's theoretically possible to file a case at the same time to both the Banking Ombudsman and the consumer court. The services provided by the Banking Ombudsman include banking services and the ability to get some sort of relief, typically financial. The consumer court deals with consumer rights violations, in general, and offers remedies that might resonate with you, for example, compensation for 'unfair trade practices', providing full satisfaction. Filing at both places maximizes your chances of finding the solution best suited to your end goal. You would do well to speak with a lawyer to address your personal case holistically.

I am writing from England so your protocol is different but the same net result.

We have two types of lending:

1. Commercial, which includes Limited Companies and Partnerships and businesses above a certain turn over (at the moment £100 000).
1. Consumer Lending which is to small business and individuals.

The only real difference is the protocols and legal requirement, which in the case of Commercial lending is simple enough. A letter stating that the account is over-due, and the amount of money required to bring the account to order. If ignored, a “Notice of Intent to commence Legal Proceedings”, which gives the debtor 7 days to pay from the date of the letter.

In the case of Consumer Credit, this is controlled by a piece (actually quite large) of legislation called “The Consumer Credit Act 1974”. This was preceded by another Act of 1964 which related to Hire Purchase Agreements, in particular cars, to cut out some of the very questionable behaviour of some lenders.

As consumer Credit started to expand in the 1970s, not just for cars, but general lending, in particular the increased use and granting of over-drafts by the banks, the 1974 Act was created, which also incorporated part of the original Hire Purchase Act of 1964. Again, one of the reasons for this the unprofessional behaviour of some lenders, relating to repossession of cars in particular.

Back in the really right up to the 1970s most people were paid in cash or cheque paid in to their bank account, or just received in a “cash pay packet”. Many people were paid weekly on a Friday. That meant that most people paid the installment due over the counter of the borrower. Most of the main lenders, including banks worked over a counter to receive payment in cash and mark off the installment in the paying in book which was provided when opening the account. Obviously that meant that the money could only be paid in to the bank when it was open.

However, the less professional lenders stated that the money was due to them at 00:01 of the day of the installment being due. Obviously this was impossible as the branch did not open until 09:00 earliest. So these less scrupulous of lenders would wait until 00:01 and “snatch-back” the item subject of the loan, at that time mainly cars. To that end the 1/3 & 1/2 rules were created under the Hire Purchase Act, which restricted the ability of these lenders to recover the item unless a certain level of money had been paid.

This stopped many of the problems, but as the Consumer Market widened in to general lending, and notably in 1969 the first Credit Card (Barclaycard) meant this legislation was not going to be enough, and was replaced and part incorporated in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

This had two very important implications. Firstly at the creation of the loan, a proper document had to be filled out at application stage and the amounts in terms of the “advance” and the interest to be paid over the period of that advance, together with the installments to be paid to cover the interest and capital advanced.

It also gave a guideline on the amount of rebate due if the account was paid early (known as the rule of 78ths); although certain loans could have a clause that meant there was no rebate, notably Credit Cards.

Most importantly there was a section in the Act devoted to default (non-payment) and the requirement of the lender to notify the borrower of the default and what was required to prevent legal action being taken. It was also required to give “advice” upon the actions required by the defaulter to get the loan back in to order or where to seek advice that was impartial and professional, in particular Accountant or Solicitor and a certain consumer advice body at that time know as the Citizens Advice Bureau.

This notice gave the defaulter 14 days to get the advice, pay the arrears or settle the debt in full. If there was no response, the loan was terminated by letter, which gave the debtor a further 7 days to make a payment before recovery action was taken in the County Court. In some cases an out of Court arrangement to pay a lower amount may have been agreed. However the Notice still stands until the arrears are paid.

This was all done to protect the debtor from these snatch backs, since in particular items like cars, plant & machinery to sole traders and individuals (but not Limited Companies /Corporations) were prime target for these less scrupulous lenders.

Once all these notices were served, the Lender could take the matter to Court and a Judgement secured. With that Judgement an Order would be made for the debt to be paid in full or with installments at the continuing rate or the Court may order a lower amount to be paid to the Creditor (Judgement holder also known as Claimant). Providing the Debtor (Defendant) complied then the Judgement holder then the Claimant can take no further action to recover the debt.

The only action that may be taken is for security to be taken out on say a house (real estate) in the form of a Charging Order, which behaves rather like a Mortgage. That is to say if you default on the loan, then an application can be made to Court for action to be taken to sell the house/real estate “over your head” (Eviction) take the money out of the proceeds and then give you back the balance.

In the case of individuals and personal borrowers for political and public relation purposes even if default did occur, usually the Claimant would not “foreclose” but write the debt off and wait for the Defendant to sell the property or if they died be paid out of the funds on the realisation of the Estate.

Usually if the Defendant defaults on the agreement /Order then depending on the size of the arrears, a Warrant of Execution (don’t worry not as violent as it sounds -:)) which means a Court Bailiff is able to take goods to the value of the Warrant, sell them and the proceeds less costs forwarded to the Creditor. Even in these cases sometimes the Warrant may be “suspended”, i.e. the Bailiff not sent in, providing the Defendant starts making payments again.

Of course if the Defendant defaults then usually a Bailiff will be instructed to recover and sell the goods to the value of the Warrant.

So, that is the UK Procedure from the initial default of the loan agreement, or commercial /trade debt through to the litigation side to recover the debt. Of course you do have the ultimate recourse of Bankruptcy, but usually that is not viable for individuals, since usually even as a bank, you are down the list of Creditors, from the Tax Office and H M Customs, who are always paid first.

In the case of Corporate operations the bank may “foreclose” i.e. enforce the Court Order for Bankruptcy or use a special Instrument called a Charge (similar to a Charging Order on the House) but over the company which allows the bank to take control of the company, effectively “firing” the Directors and putting in their stead what we refer to as Insolvency Practitioners, to run the company with a view to either selling it on, or alternatively closing it down in a controlled manner so that the Creditors are treated correctly and those with security paid first. Also arrangements for the staff who will be made redundant. Sometimes there is just enough “equity” in the business to give them a months pay in lieu of notice.

However, the Government do have a compensation scheme for those who have been employed for more than 12 months and will make good the difference between what has been paid to the employee on the liquidation of the company/business and what their entitlement for redundancy should have been.

In the case where the business can be “re-floated” or another company buys the “shell” of the company in distress, that may save the jobs, but not necessarily all of them.

First, you need to go Bank ombudsman, if you are not getting a satisfactory response from there then you can file a complaint against the bank at Voxya an online consumer complaint forum.