A. Debt Recovery Tribunals
DRTs were set up under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Under the Act, two types of Tribunals were set up i.e. Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The DRTs are vested with competence to entertain cases referred to them, by the banks and FIs for recovery of debts due to the same. The order passed by a DRT is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal but no appeal shall be entertained by the DRAT unless the applicant deposits 75% of the amount due from him as determined by it. However, the Affiliate Tribunal may, for reasons to be received in writing, waive or reduce the amount of such deposit. Advances of Rs. 1 million and above can be settled through DRT process. An important power conferred on the Tribunal is that of making an interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay) against the defendant to debar him from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of any property and the assets belonging to him within prior permission of the Tribunal. This order can be passed even while the claim is pending. DRTs are criticized in respect of recovery made considering the size of NPAs in the Country. In general, it is observed that the defendants approach the High Country challenging the verdict of the Appellate Tribunal which leads to further delays in recovery. Validity of the Act is often challenged in the court which hinders the progress of the DRTs. Lastly, many needs to be done for making the DRTs stronger in terms of infrastructure.
The institution of Lokadalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 helps in resolving disputes between the parties by conciliation, mediation, compromise or amicable settlement. It is known for effecting mediation and counseling between the parties and to reduce burden on the court, especially for small loans. Cases involving suit claims up to Rs. l million can be brought before the Lokadalat and every award of the Lokadalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and no appeal can lie to any court against the award made by the Lokadalat. Several people of particular localities/ various social organizations are approaching Lokadalats which are generally presided over by two or three senior persons including retired senior civil servants, defense personnel and judicial officers. They take up cases which are suitable for settlement of debt for certain consideration. Parties are heard and they explain their legal position. They are advised to reach to some settlement due to social pressure of senior bureaucrats or judicial officers or social workers. If the compromise is arrived at, the parties to the litigation sign a statement in presence of Lokadalats which is expected to be filed in court to obtain a consent decree. Normally, if such settlement contains a clause that if the compromise is not adhered to by the parties, the suits pending in the court will proceed in accordance with the law and parties will have a right to get the decree from the court. In general, it is observed that banks do not get the full advantage of the Lokadalats. It is difficult to collect the concerned borrowers willing to go in for compromise on the day when the Lokadalat meets. In any case, we should continue our efforts to seek the help of the Lokadalat.
C. Enactment of SRFAESI Act
The “The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act” (SRFAESI) provides the formal legal basis and regulatory framework for setting up Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) in India. In addition to asset reconstruction and ARCs, the Act deals with the following largely aspects,
- Securitization and Securitization Companies
- Enforcement of Security Interest
- Creation of a central registry in which all securitization and asset reconstruction transactions as well as any creation of security interests has to be filed.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the designated regulatory authority for ARCS has issued Directions, Guidance Notes, Application Form and Guidelines to Banks in April 2003 for regulating functioning of the proposed ARCS and these Directions/ Guidance Notes cover various aspects relating to registration, operations and funding of ARCS and resolution of NPAs by ARCS. The RBI has also issued guidelines to banks and financial institutions on issues relating to transfer of assets to ARCS, consideration for the same and valuation of instruments issued by the ARCS. Additionally, the Central Government has issued the security enforcement rules (“Enforcement Rules”), which lays down the procedure to be followed by a secured creditor while enforcing its security interest pursuant to the Act. The Act permits the secured creditors (if 75% of the secured creditors agree) to enforce their security interest in relation to the underlying security without reference to the Court after giving a 60 day notice to the defaulting borrower upon classification of the corresponding financial assistance as a non-performing asset.
The Act permits the secured creditors to take any of the following measures:
- Take over possession of the secured assets of the borrower including right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale;
- Take over the management of the secured assets including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale;
- Appoint any person as a manager of the secured asset (such person could be the ARC if they do not accept any pecuniary liability); and
- Recover receivables of the borrower in respect of any secured asset which has been transferred.
After taking over possession of the secured assets, the secured creditors are required to obtain valuation of the assets. These secured assets may be sold by using any of the following routes to obtain maximum value.
- By obtaining quotations from persons dealing in such assets or otherwise interested in buying the assets;
- By inviting tenders from the public;
- By holding public auctions; or
- By private treaty.
Lenders have seized collateral in some cases and while it has not yet been possible to recover value from most such seizures due to certain legal hurdles, lenders are now clearly in a much better bargaining position vis-a-vis defaulting borrowers than they were before the enactment of SRFAESI Act. When the legal hurdles are removed, the bargaining power of lenders is likely to improve further and one would expect to see a large number of NPAs being resolved in quick time, either through security enforcement or through settlements.
Under the SRFAESI Act ARCS can be set up under the Companies Act, 1956. The Act designates any person holding not less than 10% of the paid-up equity capital of the ARC as a sponsor and prohibits any sponsor from holding a controlling interest in, being the holding company of or being in control of the ARC. The SRFAESI and SRFAESI Rules/ Guidelines require ARCS to have a minimum net-owned fund of not less than Rs. 20,000,000. Further, the Directions require that an ARC should maintain, on an ongoing basis, a minimum capital adequacy ratio of 15% of its risk weighted assets. ARCS have been granted a maximum realization time frame of five years from the date of acquisition of the assets.
The Act stipulates several measures that can be undertaken by ARCs for asset reconstruction. These include:
- Enforcement of security interest;
- Taking over or changing the management of the business of the borrower;
- The sale or lease of the business of the borrower;
- Settlement of the borrowers’ dues; and
- Restructuring or rescheduling of debt.
ARCS are also permitted to act as a manager of collateral assets taken over by the lenders under security enforcement rights available to them or as a recovery agent for any bank or financial institution and to receive a fee for the discharge of these functions. They can also be appointed to act as a receiver, if appointed by any Court or DRT.
D. Institution of CDR Mechanism
The RBI has instituted the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) mechanism for resolution of NPAs of viable entities facing financial difficulties. The CDR mechanism instituted in India is broadly along the lines of similar systems in the UK, Thailand, Korea and Malaysia. The objective of the CDR mechanism has been to ensure timely and transparent restructuring of corporate debt outside the purview of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), DRTs or other legal proceedings. The framework is intended to preserve viable corporate affected by certain internal/external factors and minimize losses to creditors/other stakeholders through an orderly and coordinated restructuring programme. RBI has issued revised guidelines in February 2003 with respect to the CDR mechanism. Corporate borrowers with borrowings from the banking system of Rs. 20crores and above under multiple banking arrangement are eligible under the CDR mechanism. Accounts falling under standard, sub-standard or doubtful categories can be considered for restructuring. CDR is a non-statutory mechanism based on debtor-creditor agreement and inter-creditor agreement. Restructuring helps in aligning repayment obligations for bankers with the cash flow projections as reassessed at the time of restructuring. Therefore it is critical to prepare a restructuring plan on the lines of the expected business plan along with projected cash flows.
The CDR process is being stabilized. Certain revisions are envisaged with respect to the eligibility criteria (amount of borrowings) and time frame for restructuring. Foreign banks are not members of the CDR forum, and it is expected that they would be signing the agreements shortly. However they attend meetings. The first ARC to be operational in India- Asset Reconstruction Company of India (ARGIL) is a member of the CDR forum. Lenders in India prefer to resort to CDR mechanism to avoid unnecessary delays in multiple lender arrangements and to increase transparency in the process. While in the RBI guidelines it has been recommended to involve independent consultants, banks are so far resorting to their internal teams for recommending restructuring programs.
E. Compromise Settlement Schemes
- One Time Settlement Schemes: NPAs in all sectors, which have become doubtful or loss as on 31st March 2000. The scheme also covers NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March 2000, which have subsequently become doubtful or loss. All cases on which the banks have initiated action under the SRFAESI Act and also cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR, subject to consent decree being obtained from the Courts/DRTs/BIFR are covered. However cases of willful default, fraud and malfeasance are not covered. As per the OTS scheme, for NPAs up to Rs. 10crores, the minimum amount that should be recovered should be 100% of the outstanding balance in the account.
- Negotiated Settlement Schemes: The RBI/Government has been encouraging banks to design and implement policies for negotiated settlements, particularly for old and unresolved NPAs. The broad framework for such settlements was put in place in July 1995. Specific guidelines were issued in May 1999 to public sector banks for one-time settlements of NPAs of small scale sector. This scheme was valid until September 2000 and enabled banks to recover Rs 6.7 billion from various accounts. Revised guidelines were issued in July 2000 for recovery of NPAs of Rs. 50 million and less. These guidelines were effective until June 2001 and helped banks recover Rs. 26 billion.
F. Increased Powers to NCLTs and the Proposed Repeal of BIFR
In India, companies whose net worth has been wiped out on account of accumulated losses come under the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) and need to be referred to BIFR. Once a company is referred to the BIFR (and even if an enquiry is pending as to whether it should be admitted to BIFR), it is afforded protection against recovery proceedings from its creditors. BIFR is widely regarded as a stumbling block in recovering value for NPAs. Promoters systematically take refuge in SICA – often there is a scramble to file a reference in BIFR so as to obtain protection from debt recovery proceedings. The recent amendments to the Companies Act vest powers for revival and rehabilitation of companies with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), in place of BIFR, with modifications to address weaknesses experienced under the SICA provisions. The NCLT would prepare a scheme for reconstruction of any sick company and there is no bar on the lending institution of legal proceedings against such company whilst the scheme is being prepared by the NCLT. Therefore, proceedings initiated by any creditor seeking to recover monies from a sick company would not be suspended by a reference to the NCLT and, therefore, the above provision of the Act may not have much relevance any longer and probably does not extend to the tribunal for this reason. However, there is a possibility of conflict between the activities that may be undertaken by the ARC, e.g. change in management, and the role of the NCLT in restructuring sick companies. The Bill to repeal SICA is currently pending in Parliament and the process of staffing of NCLTs has been initiated.