OMG! SBI collected Rs 1771-cr charges from below minimum balance accounts in April-Nov

News Network
January 2, 2018

The below minimum balance in your account is indeed a bonanza for the banks. According data provided by the finance ministry, India's largest lender State Bank of India, from April to November in 2017, had collected a whopping Rs 1,771 crore as charges from customers who did not maintain their minimum monthly average balance (MAB) in their accounts.

It has been learnt that the amount is more than the bank’s July-September quarter net profit of Rs 1,581.55 crore and nearly half of the Rs 3,586 crore it earned as net profit from April to September.

SBI did not collect any money from levy of charges for non-maintenance of MAB during the 2016-17 financial year. The charges were re-introduced after a gap of five years during the current fiscal. The bank has a total of 42 crore savings bank accounts of which 13 crore are Basic Savings Bank Deposits Accounts and Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana accounts, both categories exempted from levy of such charges.

SBI yesterday reduced the base rate and benchmark prime lending rates (BPLR) by 30 basis points each, which will benefit nearly 80 lakh customers on the old pricing regime. The nation’s largest lender revised down the base rate to 8.65 per cent for existing customers from 8.95 per cent, while the BPLR is down from 13.70 per cent to 13.40 per cent. The bank however did not change the marginal cost of funds-based lending rate (MCLR) which would have brought down the cost for all borrowers. The one-year MCLR of the bank stands unchanged at 7.95 per cent. The new rates will be effective yesterday, the bank said in a statement.

“We had done the rate review in the last week of December, and based on whatever deposits rates we had, our base rate was brought down by 30 basis points to 8.65 per cent now,” managing director for retail and digital banking, PK Gupta told reporters in a concall. Nearly 80 lakh customers who are on the old lending rate regimes and have not moved to MCLR, will be benefited from this reduction. Banks review MCLR on a monthly basis, while the base rate revision happens once a quarter.

Other banks

After SBI, Punjab National Bank recorded the highest collection of Rs 97.34 crore through levy of such charges during the April-November period followed by Central Bank of India’s Rs 68.67 crore and Canara Bank’s Rs 62.16 crore.

Punjab and Sind Bank is the only state-run lender which did not levy any charges during April-November and in 2016-17.

Comments

weenuji
 - 
Wednesday, 3 Jan 2018

SBI apart from MAB fee of rs 1771 cr had earned 42-13 39 cr accounts less about 3 cr account not maintained minimum ie 36 crores. For april-sep min bal was 5000/ considering rural semi urban an avg balance with SBi would be 3000/-. So 36X3000 108000cr was minimum balance and a fixed amount. This fixed amount would have at least earned 6 interest (lending rate >12 ), less Sb interest 4 paid. minimum 2 on 108000cr pocked by SBI. 108000x2/100x7/12 1260 cr. So SBI had pocked in most conservative and simple estimation overall 1771+1260 3031 cr money of SBI account holders

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 22,2024

Mangaluru: A man fell victim to an online scam, losing Rs 1.7 crore after fraudsters posed as officials from TRAI. According to a complaint filed at the CEN police station, the incident began on November 11, when the complainant received a call from an unknown number at 9:49 am.

The caller, claiming to represent TRAI, alleged that another mobile number registered under the complainant's name was involved in illegal activities in Andheri (East), Mumbai. The caller further stated that an FIR was lodged against the complainant for harassment under the guise of marketing. He was instructed to contact Andheri (East) police station immediately or risk his mobile service being deactivated within two hours.

The complainant was subsequently connected to an individual named Pradeep Sawant, who claimed the complainant was implicated in a money laundering scheme linked to the Naresh Goyal fraud case. Sawant alleged that a fraudulent bank account under the complainant's name was opened at Canara Bank, Andheri, and used to purchase a SIM card for illegal activities. He warned that the complainant could face arrest.

Later, the complainant was contacted via WhatsApp video call by individuals posing as Rahul Kumar (a police officer) and Akanksha (a CBI officer). They allegedly sent fabricated CBI documents to his WhatsApp number. The fraudsters demanded money to "resolve" the case. Fearing threats, the complainant allegedly transferred Rs 1.7 crore through RTGS in batches of Rs 53 lakh, Rs 74 lakh, and Rs 44 lakh between November 13 and 19. A case has been registered at the CEN police station and an investigation is ongoing.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 16,2024

Mangaluru: The Kavoor police in Mangaluru, Karnataka, have arrested three individuals from Kerala in connection with two separate cybercrime cases, including one involving extortion under the guise of a "digital arrest."

City Commissioner of Police Anupam Agrawal reported that one of the arrested individuals, Nisar, a resident of Ernakulam district, posed as a CBI officer. He allegedly threatened the complainant with arrest and extorted Rs 68 lakh. A case has been filed under sections 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the IT Act, and sections 308 (2) and 381 (4) of BNS.

In another case, the Kavoor police arrested two men, Sahil K P of Thiruvannur, Kozhikode, and Muhammad Nashath of Mappila Koyilandy, Kerala, in connection with a share trade fraud. The accused are alleged to have deceived the complainant by promising substantial profits from an investment in the stock market. Trusting the fraudsters, the complainant invested Rs 90 lakh, which was subsequently lost. A case has been registered under sections 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the IT Act, and sections 318 (4) and 3 (5) of BNS.

The accused were arrested in Koyilandi and presented before the court. The operation was carried out under the guidance of City Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal, led by Mangaluru North Sub-Division ACP Srikanth K, Kavoor Inspector Raghavendra Byndoor, Kavoor PSI Mallikarjuna Biradara, and staff members Ramanna Shetty, Bhuvaneshwari, Rajappa Kashibai, Praveen N, and Malatesh. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.