Experts CornerPramod Rao

The advent of Covid-19 brought home the fragility of life in a way that none in living memory had considered. Both the first wave and the second wave, and the impending third wave, make it all too clear that taking safeguards (masks, frequent hand wash or use of sanitisers) and precautions (taking both the doses of the vaccine) are all too necessary lest life or health will be in severe jeopardy.

 

It is also a time that compels contemplating taking “precautions” to reduce the impact of what the survivors, successors and legal heirs may face after the death of an individual in relation to personal finances and financial assets of such individuals. Nominations have long been considered the panacea both for the individuals and their survivors/successors, and for the institutions that provide nomination facilities. Another initiative often considered is opting for the joint ownership of financial assets, so that the surviving joint owners can access financial assets notwithstanding untimely demise.

 

Both these approaches serve to bypass the daunting and time-consuming process of obtaining succession certificate or court orders (in case of intestate succession) or probate or letters of administration [in case of the testamentary instrument (will) being available], and to reduce, remove or eliminate submission of cumbersome paperwork for enabling access.

 

Your columnist examines the legal and regulatory regime governing nominations and joint ownership of three popular financial assets and their nuances.

(a) Current accounts, savings accounts and fixed deposits with banks.

(b) Safe custody and safety lockers with banks.

(c) Depository or demat accounts.

(d) Mutual funds holdings.

 


Nomination facility in current accounts, savings accounts and fixed deposits with banks


The aggregate of balances in current and savings accounts, as well as fixed deposits in India stands at Rs 153.1 trillion as of 31-3-2021, and represents a sizable amount of money saved or in transit (to be saved or spent). It also represents the most safe savings instrument (barring rare exceptions) in the country.

 

Nomination facility is encoded in a statutory provision viz. Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, added in 1985 to ease the release of deposits to the nominee specified by the depositor upon death of the depositor. The section governs credit balances in savings accounts and current accounts, and to fixed deposits with banks. The norms for access to articles kept in safe custody with banks[1] and safety lockers[2] also follow principles and norms applicable for deposits (unless otherwise noted).

 

Individuals who jointly own and operate bank accounts or deposits are also permitted to make nominations. Nominations can only be made when the deposits are held in an individual capacity, and not in a representative capacity (including as a holder of an office or otherwise).

The forms as prescribed are part of the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985.[3]

 

If the nominee is a minor, the depositor can choose while making the nomination to appoint another individual (who is a major), to receive the amounts on behalf of the nominee (during the minority of the nominee) in the event of the death of the depositor.

 

A depositor can vary or cancel the nomination during the tenure of the deposit. Banks are required to provide acknowledgment of nominations to the depositor, and register the nomination, cancellation or variation in its records.

 

The key benefit that nominations provide to banks is that they receive a full discharge of the liability in respect of the deposit on making payment of the monies to the nominee[4].

 

It is important to note that while the nominee is legally entitled to receive the money from the bank, the nominee does not constitute the successor or inheritor of such sums. The successors or legal heirs (either in terms of the will executed by the depositor, or as per the personal laws of succession governing the depositor who dies intestate) are entitled to claim their rightful share from the nominee[5].

 

Many a time one sees claimants (claiming to be legal heirs or successors of a deceased depositor) serve notice of their claim or interest to the bank. As such[6], a bank is not bound to receive such notice nor is bound by such notice even when it has been expressly delivered to it. Only and only if a decree, order, certificate or other authority from a court of competent jurisdiction relating to such deposit is notified or served on the bank, is the bank required to take due note of such decree, order, certificate or other authority[7].

 

Table 1: Current and savings accounts, fixed deposits, safe custody and safety lockers

In the event of: Transmission in favour of:
Nomination provided Nomination not provided
Death of single holder Nominee Legal heirs (as per succession certificate/probate/letters of administration)
Death of one of the joint holders Surviving joint holder(s) Surviving joint holder(s)
Death of all the joint holders Nominee Legal heirs (as per succession certificate/probate/letters of administration)

 

A further element which bears consideration is that in terms of the current law, the nomination by a bank depositor is limited to a single individual[8]. This is in contrast to several other financial assets which permit multiple nominees and/or even specification of allocation (in percentages) among such multiple nominees.

 

Hence, it appears that almost by design the bank or the nominee, or both could be placed in a situation of having to deal with the legal heirs, successors and claimants, and which could also lead to litigious situations.

 

It is your columnist’s view that Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act (and consequently the Rules thereunder) should be amended to facilitate depositors being able to specify multiple nominees (together with percentage allocation of the money among them). This would help bank deposits keep pace with the approach adopted for other financial assets. Such a change would allow the depositors to specify, as far as possible, their legal heirs as nominees together with the percentage allocation among them. It would help reduce or remove possible friction and burden that the nominee carries in having to deal with the legal heirs, successors and claimants.

 

A separate thought is for banks to facilitate nominations being done on their internet banking sites or mobile banking apps. There has been a (mis)apprehension on account of the prescribed forms requiring signatures (construed as wet or physical signatures): this has led to banks hesitating in digitalisation of the nomination process.

 

In fact, the provisions of the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the various mechanisms specified therein for concluding contracts, can extend to the nomination forms being completed and submitted through authenticated means (such as internet banking or mobile banking apps) and will be legal, valid and effective (just as the transactions conducted over such internet banking sites or mobile banking apps). Adoption of such means – Aadhaar-based eSign, or OTP-based confirmation or simply undertaking the nomination after authentication of credentials of the internet banking site or mobile banking app – would also mean that requirement of witness if any can be dispensed with.

 

In respect of articles kept in safe custody or kept in the safety lockers, one item worthy to call out as a difference (from treatment of deposits) is that the bank, before returning any articles to the nominee or prior to removal of contents of the safety locker by the nominee, is required to prepare an inventory of such articles. The nominee is required to sign a copy of such inventory, and is entitled to receive a copy of the inventory.

 


Joint ownership and operation of current and savings accounts, fixed deposits, articles in safe custody and safety locker


Almost all financial assets are capable of joint ownership. One critical aspect, especially relevant for ease of access to financial assets, is the treatment of joint ownership and of joint operation of such financial assets on the death of one of the joint owners.

 

One key benefit is the rule of survivorship, which specifies that the surviving joint owners get the legal title to the asset. It would of course beg the question then why is nomination permitted and encouraged for jointly owned accounts: it is for the remote contingency of all the joint holders perishing simultaneously or together, that nomination becomes relevant.

 

In terms of practicality, in case of current or savings accounts, it is the mode of operation which also determines the ease.

 

For instance, specifying “either or survivor” or “anyone or survivor” enables any one of the account holders jointly owning an account to access the account even upon death of any of the account holder/s. Specifying “former or survivor” allows the first account holder to operate the account during her lifetime and upon her death, the survivor to operate the account. “Latter or survivor” works in pretty much similar way, where the second account holder operates the account in her lifetime and upon her death, the first account holder can operate the account.

 

If however, the mode of operation has been specified as joint, then it requires all account holders during their lifetime to jointly provide the instructions or sign cheques. Upon death of one of the account holders, the right to operate such a joint account will stand revoked or suspended. Such surviving account holders would need to establish a separate account to receive the proceeds from the joint account.

 

Accordingly, the choice of mode of operation is highly important, and certain choices, as above, can provide ease of access to the survivors and allow the continuing operation of an account upon death of one of the account holders.

 

In terms of the rule of survivorship, the surviving account holders (under all modes of operation) get a legal title to the balance in the account, and the bank gets a good discharge from such surviving account holders.[9] Nomination, if any made, for such joint accounts has no relevance, unless all the joint account holders are no more.

 

It is all too necessary to call out that just as in the case of nominees, while the surviving account holder/s are legally entitled to receive the money from the bank, the survivors may not constitute the successors or inheritors of such sums. The successors or legal heirs (either in terms of the will executed by the deceased account holder, or as per the personal laws of succession governing the deceased who dies intestate and subject to the arrangements among the joint holders) are entitled to claim their rightful share from the survivors[10].

 

It is your columnist’s view that the choices in the mode of operation that bank accounts provide is worthy of emulation across other financial assets. Several of the financial assets straitjacket the joint ownership, and hinder the ease of access to joint owners and survivors.

 

Summary of reforms recommended for current accounts, savings accounts, fixed deposits, articles in safe custody and safety lockers

Permit multiple nominees (doing away with current limitation of one nominee).
Permit specification of allocation of percentage of among multiple nominees.
Facilitate e-nominations (over internet banking or mobile banking apps).
Placing a deadline for all holders of current accounts/savings accounts/fixed deposits that are presently without nominations to provide nominations.

Nomination facility in depository or demat accounts


 

With a growing number of investors in the equity markets, or those holding bonds and debentures or even sovereign gold bonds, having a depository account (more popularly referred to as “demat account”) with a depository participant (which in turn are linked to either of the two securities depositories[11] licensed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI) is a given. The total count of demat accounts stood at 55 million plus as of 31-3-2021[12], with Rs 518.83 trillion constituting the total value of securities held in such demat accounts.

 

Nomination is possible for demat accounts. There is flexibility to specify up to three nominees, and in case of multiple nominees, the demat account holder/s can specify the percentage of share of each nominee. In the event percentage allocation is not specified, the presumption of equal division among the nominees applies.

 

Individuals who jointly own demat accounts are also permitted to make nominations. Nominations can be made only by individuals, and only individuals/natural persons can be specified as nominees[13].

 

A minor can be a nominee, subject to the name and address of the guardian being provided.

 

The prescribed forms require photographs of the nominee and other details to help identify and give effect to the nomination. Additionally, the form requires a witness for nomination.

Nominations can be varied or cancelled and fresh nominations made.

 

The key benefit that nominations provide to depositories and depository participants is that they receive a full discharge of the liability upon the transmission of the securities balances in the demat account to the nominee.

 

It is important to note that while the nominee is legally entitled to receive the transmission of the securities balance in the demat account, the nominee does not constitute the successor or inheritor of such securities. The successors or legal heirs (either in terms of the will executed by the demat account holder, or as per the personal laws of succession governing the demat account holder who dies intestate) are entitled to claim their rightful share from the nominee[14].

 

Table 2: Depository or demat accounts

In the event of: Transmission in favour of:
Nomination provided Nomination not provided
Death of single holder Nominee(s) Legal heirs (as per succession certificate/probate/letters of administration)
Death of one of the joint holders Surviving joint holder(s) Surviving joint holder(s)
Death of all the joint holders Nominee(s) Legal heirs (as per succession certificate/probate/letters of administration)

 

As can be noted, the demat accounts permit more than one nominee (though imposes a limit of three nominees). It permits percentage allocation among the nominees for all the securities held in demat account (in the aggregate and not individually).

 

One reform to consider would be to do away with the limitation of three nominees. It would facilitate demat account holders being able to specify multiple nominees without limitation (while continuing with the percentage allocation of the money among them). Such a change would allow the demat account holders to specify, as far as possible, their legal heirs as nominees together with the percentage allocation among them. It would help reduce or remove possible friction and burden that the nominees carry in having to deal with the legal heirs, successors and claimants. Nonetheless, flexibility of having up to three nominees is certainly better than one.

 

Another limitation is the manner in which nominations along with the percentage allocations takes effect: such nominations and allocations apply across the securities balances held in the demat account, and securities-wise nominations or allocation are not currently possible. Hence, if there are multiple sets of shares and securities held, the nomination and percentage allocation uniformly cuts across all the shares and securities. A potential reform to consider is facilitating nominations and percentage allocation at the level of each security held in the demat account. Such a possibility, it must be noted, exists for physical shares and securities.

 

A few recent changes[15] that have been made by SEBI which regulates depositories and depository participants that provide demat accounts, in respect of nomination, are important to consider:

 

  • On and from 1-10-2021, investors opening new demat accounts have a choice of providing nomination or opting out of making a nomination. Due formats have been prescribed for either course, and for changes to or cancellation of nominations made.

Indeed, while the regulator has provided a choice of making nomination or opting out of making a nomination, it is your columnist’s view that it would be particularly foolish and indeed downright mean for demat account holders to not use the nomination facility. It would leave the survivors and successors facing a needless, time-consuming and daunting process of obtaining a succession certificate or court orders (in case of intestate succession) or probate or letters of administration, with attendant costs and efforts. Having chosen to invest and open a demat account, it would be prudent and practical to utilise the nomination facility.

  • All existing eligible demat account holders are required to make a choice of providing nomination or opting out of making a nomination on or before 31-3-2022, failing which no debits can be made to the demat account, effectively freezing trading of securities held therein.

Such a missive is a much-needed measure. Lack of nomination impacts both the survivors, successors and inheritors as well as the depositories and depository participants. Both bear the burden of having to arrange for (and receive) duly notarised copy of succession certificate or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction (when the demat account holder has not left a will) or duly notarised copy of probate or letter of administration (when the demat account holder did execute a will). Either course is a daunting court process, which the survivors, successors or inheritors face. For the depositories and depository participants, when there is no nomination, then good discharge can be achieved only by receiving such documents.

  • A key change has been dispensing with the witnessing of the nomination form in the following circumstances:

(a) Nomination form signed under wet signature of the demat account holders.

(b) Online nomination form signed using e-Sign facility.

Witness signature is however required when the demat account holders affix thumb impression (in lieu of signatures).

It is your columnist’s view that such a measure is quite laudatory and appreciable: it removes the friction of the depository participant or the investor having to arrange for an independent witness, and provides due privacy to investors affixing wet signatures or using e-Sign facility. In respect of investors affixing thumb impressions, perhaps if could be nudged instead to use e-Sign facility (which also relies on biometric identification), would also have the same benefit. Notably, most other financial assets also do not require witnessing of the nomination form and this measure brings demat accounts in line with the same.

 


Joint ownership and operation of demat accounts


Individuals can jointly own demat accounts, subject to a limit of three joint owners. A minor cannot be one of the joint owners[16].

 

In keeping with the recommendation of lifting the limit of number of nominees, it would be appropriate to also recommend lifting the limit of number of joint owners of a demat account.

 

In case of death of any one joint owner, the rule of survivorship will be applicable. To briefly recap, this means that the surviving joint owners get the legal title to the balances in the demat account. It is noted that while the surviving account holder/s are legally entitled to receive the securities balances in the demat account, the survivors may not constitute the successors or inheritors of such securities. The successors or legal heirs (either in terms of the will executed by the deceased demat account holder, or as per the personal laws of succession governing the deceased who dies intestate and subject to the arrangements among the joint holders) are entitled to claim their rightful share from the survivors[17].

 

When the surviving demat account holders provide a notarised death certificate of the deceased account holder, the depository participant would proceed to freeze the demat account, and transmit the balances to the demat account of the surviving demat account holders.

 

This presumably preserves the record of holdings, transactions and of the demat account holders (including the deceased account holder) in the records of the depository, and fresh records are created for the surviving demat account holders and their transactions.

 

This perhaps is a key difference between joint bank accounts and joint demat accounts: the former is a running account, capable of being operated (subject to the mode of operation) even upon the demise of one of the joint holders, while the demat account is closed upon death of one of the joint holders. A reform worthy of consideration is treating the demat account as a running account, the way bank accounts are: so demise of a joint owner should not mean closure of the demat account (with attendant transmission of the balances to the demat account of the surviving demat account holders). Rather, the surviving demat account holders should be allowed to continue operations in the same demat account.

 

Jointly owned demat accounts also have a very limited scope on mode of operation: the depositories require that all joint holders authorise the transactions.

 

Practically, the first holder or main holder could be conducting the transactions, especially in case of online transactions. Additionally, reliance is possibly placed on a letter of authority or power of attorney given by all the joint owners of the demat account holders.

 

As mentioned earlier, the multiple choices in the mode of operations that bank accounts provide is worthy of emulation for demat accounts. Limiting the mode of operation to only jointly by all the demat account holders, and allowing practices to develop wherein parties rely upon a letter of authority or a power of attorney from all the demat account holders can be thought of as an inefficient and poor workaround. Rather, just as banks facilitate different types of modes of operations, the two depositories could upgrade their systems to provide the same or similar facility.

 

Summary of reforms recommended for depository or demat accounts

Permit multiple nominees (doing away with current limitation of three nominees).
Permit ability to specify nominations and percentage allocation at the level of each security held in the demat account (from current account level nomination and allocation being feasible).
Removal of choice of opting out from making nomination.
Permit multiple joint owners (doing away with current limitation of three joint owners).
Permitting jointly held demat accounts to become a running account by surviving demat account holders after the death of one of the joint holders (doing away with closure of demat account and transfer of balances to demat account held by surviving holders).
Permitting multiple modes of operation for jointly held demat accounts

(either or survivor, anyone or survivor, former or survivor, latter or survivor, joint).


Nomination facility in mutual funds


 

Investments in mutual fund schemes have grown by leaps and bounds, and particularly post demonetisation. The current corpus under management of mutual funds is at Rs 31.4 trillion as on 31-3-2021.

 

Nomination is possible for mutual fund holdings. Nomination made by a mutual fund investor is applicable for units held in all the schemes under the respective folio/account and gets rescinded on redemption of such units or its transfer.

 

There is flexibility to specify up to three nominees, and in case of multiple nominees, the mutual fund investor can specify the percentage of share of each nominee with such allocation/share being required to be in whole numbers without any decimal. In the event percentage allocation is not specified, the presumption of equal division among the nominees applies.

 

Individuals who are joint investors in mutual fund (irrespective of the mode of operation) are also permitted to make nominations, being required to do so jointly.

 

Nominations can be made only by individuals. Non-individuals including a society, trust, body corporate, partnership firm, karta of Hindu Undivided Family, a power-of-attorney holder and/or guardian of minor mutual fund investor cannot nominate.

 

Nominations can be in favour of individuals/natural persons, and also the Central Government, State Government, a local authority, any person designated by virtue of his/her office or a religious or charitable trust can be specified as nominees. This is an expanded set of eligible nominees (distinct from nominations permitted for bank accounts or demat accounts).

 

A minor can be a nominee, subject to the name and address of the guardian being provided.

 

Nominations can be varied or cancelled, and fresh nominations made.

 

Uniquely, there is a specification of consequences in case of death of a nominee. In the event of the nominee(s) predeceasing the mutual fund investor(s), the nomination is automatically cancelled. In case of multiple nominations, if any of the nominee is deceased at the time of claim settlement, that nominee’s share would be distributed equally amongst the surviving nominees.

 

Transmission of units in favour of the nominee(s) constitutes valid discharge of the asset management company, the trustee company and the mutual fund. It is important to note that while the nominee is legally entitled to receive the units, the nominee does not constitute the successor or inheritor of such units. The successors or legal heirs (either in terms of the will executed by the mutual fund investor, or as per the personal laws of succession governing the mutual fund investor who dies intestate) are entitled to claim their rightful share from the nominee[18].

 

To claim the units after the death of a unit holder, the nominee has to complete the necessary formalities, such as completion of KYC process, along with proof of death of the unit holder, signature of the nominee duly attested, furnishing of proof of guardianship in case the nominee is a minor, and such other document as may be required for transmitting the units in favour of the nominee(s)[19]. One key element, which appears to be excessive or contributing to avoidable friction is requirement of attestation of nominee’s signatures. When the transmission amount is up to Rs 2 lakhs, the attestation by a Bank Manager is required in a prescribed form, and when the transmission amount is more than Rs 2 lakhs, the attestation by a notary public or a Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC) is required. Attestation requirements also extend to various documents including bank passbook/bank statement, death certificate and so on, all of which appear excessive and could be dispensed with.

 

It is also important to note that when units in mutual fund schemes are held in a depository or a demat account, the nomination details provided to the depository/depository participants will be applicable to such units and govern the transmission.

Table 3: Mutual fund folios/accounts

In the event of: Transmission in favour of:
Nomination provided Nomination not provided
Death of single holder Nominee(s) Legal heirs (as per succession certificate/probate/letters of administration)
Death of one of the joint holders Surviving joint holder(s) Surviving joint holder(s)
Death of all the joint holders Nominee(s) Legal heirs (as per succession certificate/probate/letters of administration)

 

As can be noted, the mutual funds permit more than one nominee (though imposes a limit of three nominees). It permits percentage allocation among the nominees for the units held in the folio/account (in the aggregate and not individually).

 

One reform to consider would be to do away with the limitation of three nominees. It would facilitate mutual fund investors being able to specify multiple nominees without limitation (while continuing with the percentage allocation of the money among them). Such a change would allow the mutual fund investors to specify, as far as possible, their legal heirs as nominees together with the percentage allocation among them. It would help reduce or remove possible friction and burden that the nominees carry in having to deal with the legal heirs, successors and claimants. Nonetheless, flexibility of having up to three nominees is certainly better than one.

 

One further reform to consider is doing away with a choice not to furnish a nomination. As previously noted, it is your columnist’s view that it would be particularly foolish and indeed downright mean for mutual fund investors to not use the nomination facility. It would leave the survivors and successors facing a needless, time-consuming and daunting process of obtaining a succession certificate or court orders (in case of intestate succession) or probate or letters of administration, with attendant costs and efforts. Having chosen to invest and create assets in form of units of mutual fund schemes, it would be prudent and practical to utilise the nomination facility.

 

Finally, enabling e-nomination facilities could greatly boost specifying nominee(s). Either the mutual fund industry and AMFI – the Association of Mutual Funds in India – could harness the provisions of the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the various mechanisms specified therein for concluding contracts, for completion of the nomination forms and submission through authenticated means and will be legal, valid and effective. Adoption of such means – Aadhaar-based eSign, or OTP-based confirmation or simply undertaking the nomination after authentication of credentials of the internet site or mobile app of the AMC – would also mean that requirement of witness if any can be dispensed with. Alternatively, SEBI could specify e-nomination norms for mutual funds akin to the norms specified for demat accounts.

 


Joint ownership and operation of mutual fund investments


Individuals can jointly own units in mutual fund schemes, subject to a limit of three joint owners.

 

In keeping with the recommendation of lifting the limit of number of nominees, it would be appropriate to also recommend lifting the limit of number of joint owners of units in mutual fund schemes.

 

In case of death of any one joint owner, the rule of survivorship will be applicable. To briefly recap, this means that the surviving joint owners get the legal title to the units of the mutual fund scheme. While the surviving joint holders are legally entitled to the units of the mutual fund scheme, the survivors may not constitute the successors or inheritors of such units. The successors or legal heirs (either in terms of the will executed by the deceased joint holder, or as per the personal laws of succession governing the deceased who dies intestate and subject to the arrangements among the joint holders) are entitled to claim their rightful share from the survivors[20].

 

Akin to bank accounts, the folios/accounts and the units held in such folios/accounts continue to operate without any issue, and only the details of the holders – nominees in case of sole mutual fund investor, or the surviving joint holder/s – get updated.

 

Mutual funds permit “either or survivor” mode of operation when investments are jointly held, thereby providing flexibility for the investors in transacting. The exception is making nominations, which have to be jointly made.

 

Summary of reforms recommended for mutual fund investments

Permit multiple nominees (doing away with current limitation of three nominees).
Removal of choice of opting out from making nomination.
Permit multiple joint owners (doing away with current limitation of three joint owners).
Removal of attestation requirement for signatures of nominees or of documents submitted by nominees regardless of amounts that are to be transmitted.

 


Concluding remarks


As would be appreciated, there are very many similarities (and the differences are less apparent) in the nomination facilities, and joint holdings of financial products. These similarities and differences can have significance for orderly claim by nominee or survivors, and due discharge of the financial institutions. In many senses, the system may be efficacious, but quite tedious, time consuming, and also containing many pain points, friction and overall stressful to the nominees and claimants navigating the process. The financial institutions which have to process such claims also are hidebound to adhere to rules framed in a different era and time, running the risk of not securing due discharge and/or regulatory reprimands or penalties if deviate from such rules.

 

For anyone who has lost a loved one and is coping with an unfamiliar and difficult process, aggravated by the circumstances Covid-19 has brought, if financial sector regulators and financial institutions can consider reforms for further easing the pain, the friction and the efforts that survivors make in accessing the financial assets of the deceased, it would be highly commended and appreciated.

 

Adopting the best features regarding nominations or joint holdings as outlined above for each type of financial product would appear the easiest way forward.

 

Additionally, a few of the limitations – number of joint owners or number of nominees – most likely come from a technology system design perspective, where the record-keeping capability or capacity perhaps acted as the reason for the limits. In case of bank accounts, it is in fact coded into the statute. In real life and for assets such as real estate or physically held securities, such limits do not apply. The technology and systems should accordingly adapt and be upgraded to enable individuals and families to deal with financial assets in the mode, manner and extent that they desire.

 

It is time for society to be fair-minded to its financial consumers and their nominees, successors and survivors at the time they most need solace and support.


†  Group General Counsel at ICICI Bank. His Linkedin profile can be accessed HERE

Disclaimer: Views in this article are his personal views.

*Vanaj Vidyan, student of RMLNLU has assisted in the research of the article.

[1] Governed by S. 45-ZE of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

[2] Governed by S. 45-ZE of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

[3] See <HERE>; Vide Noti. No. S.O. 264(E), dated March 29, 1985, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Part II, S. 3(ii), dated 29th March, 1985, pp. 10-18.

[4] S. 45-ZA(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

[5] Proviso to S. 45-ZA(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; also specification in the will that the nominee is the beneficiary can obviate challenges or issues from arising.

[6] S. 45-ZB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

[7] Proviso to S. 45-ZB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

[8] In case of jointly operated lockers i.e. by two or more individuals jointly, such hirers may nominate one or more persons to whom, in the event of the death of such joint hirer or hirers, the bank may give, jointly with the surviving joint hirer or joint hirers, access to the locker and liberty to remove the contents of such locker.

[9] Banks as such do not take notice of any rival claimants to the monies even if notified though would take note of a decree, order, certificate or other authority from a court of competent jurisdiction relating to such money if is duly notified or served on the bank.

[10] Specification in the will that the joint owners or surviving joint holders are the beneficiaries can obviate challenges or issues from arising.

[11] NSDL: National Securities Depository Ltd., and CDSL: Central Depository Services (India) Ltd.

[12] 55,127,436 as of 31-3-2021 for the detail oriented.

[13] Akin to nominations for bank accounts excluding non-individuals.

[14] Specification in the will that the nominee/s is the beneficiary/ies can obviate challenges or issues from arising.

[15] See <HERE>.

[16] On account of minors incapacity to enter into contracts.

[17] Specification in the will that the joint owners or surviving joint holders are the beneficiaries can obviate challenges or issues from arising; one other potential challenge that should be considered is how the surviving joint holders get along (or do not), and hence segregating securities into distinct demat accounts with one joint holder each could be a better approach (unless securities level nomination is permitted).

[18] Specification in the will that the nominee/s is the beneficiary/ies can obviate challenges or issues from arising.

[19] See Here

[20] Specification in the will that the joint owners or surviving joint holders are the beneficiaries can obviate challenges or issues from arising; one other potential challenge that should be considered is how the surviving joint holders get along (or do not), and hence segregating the mutual fund holdings into distinct folios with one joint holder each could be a better approach.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah, JJ has refused to pass any direction in the petition seeking effective and remedial measures to redress and overcome the financial stress and hardship faced by the borrowers of the country during the second wave of Covid 19 and lockdown.

The Circular of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) dated 05.05.2021, by which the Reserve Bank of India has issued Resolution of Covid 19 related stress of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), was put before the Court in support of the petition. It was argued that the Circular does not sufficiently address the hardship of the borrowers.

The Court, however, said,

“Be that as it may, the financial relief and other measures are in the domain of the Government and essentially related to policy matter.”

It is pertinent to note that the 3-judge consisting of both the judges of the present bench, along with R. Subhash Reddy, J had, in a breather to customers in the case relating to waiver of interest on loan during the moratorium period, directed that all steps to implement the decision dated 23.10.2020 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance be taken so that benefit to the eight categories contemplated in the affidavit can be extended.

Read the full report on the said order here:

COVID-19| Seeking waiver of interest on interest for loan during the moratorium period? SC asks Govt to implement decision to forego compound interest on these 8 categories

The Court, hence, left it to the Union of India and the Reserve Bank of India to consider and take appropriate decision in the matter.

[Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 423, order dated 11.06.2021]


For Petitioner: Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. B.V. Balramdas, AOR

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: In an important verdict concerning the Small Scale Industries, particularly the MSMEs, facing the financial strain due to the Corona Virus Pandemic, the 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah*, JJ has held that there shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest from any of the borrowers who availed RBI’s loan moratorium scheme for the period between March 1, 2020 till August 31, 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown.

The Court held that whatever the amount is recovered by way of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium, the same shall be refunded and be adjusted/given credit in the next instalment of the loan account.

The Court, however, refused to extend the moratorium period and also refused to grant the relief of total waiver of interest. 

Background

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Covid-19 Regulatory Package notified by the RBI vide notification dated 27.03.2020 seeking total waiver of interest being charged on the loan amount during the moratorium period and also further extension of the moratorium period. It was also prayed before the Court that the relief packages which are offered by the UOI/RBI/Bankers/Lenders were not sufficient and some better and/or more reliefs should be offered.

However, on 23.10.2020 , the Central Government came out with a policy decision by which it is decided not to charge the interest on interest on the loans up to Rs. 2 crores.  However, such relief was restricted to these 8 categories.

It was Central Government’s case that if the Government were to consider waiver of interest on all the loans and advances to all classes and categories of borrowers corresponding to the six-month period for which the moratorium was made available under the relevant RBI circulars, the estimated amount is more than Rs. 6 lakh crores. “If the banks were to bear this burden, it would necessarily wipe out a substantial and a major part of their net worth, rendering most of the banks unviable and raising a very serious question mark over their very survival.” This was one of the main reasons why waiver of interest   was   not   even   contemplated and only payment of instalments was deferred.

After careful consideration and weighing all possible options, the Central Government decided to continue the tradition of handholding the small borrowers and, therefore, granted the relief of waiver of compound interest during the moratorium period, limited to the most vulnerable categories of borrowers.

Ruling 

Total Waiver of interest during moratorium period

The bankers/lenders have to pay the interest to the depositors and their liability to pay the interest on the deposits continue even during the moratorium period. They also have to bear the administrative expenses. Continue payment of interest to depositors is not only one of the most essential banking activities but it shall be a huge responsibility owed by the banks to crores and crores of small depositors, pensioners etc. surviving on the interest from their deposits. There may be several welfare funds schemes, category specific and sector specific which might be surviving and are implemented on the strength of the interest generated from their deposits. All such welfare funds would depend on the income generated from their deposits for the survival of their members.

“Therefore, to grant such a relief of total waiver of interest during the moratorium period would have a far-reaching financial implication in the economy of the country as well as the lenders/banks.”

Hence, when a conscious decision has been taken not to waive the interest during the moratorium period and a policy decision has been taken to give relief to the borrowers by deferring the payment of installments and so many other reliefs are offered by the RBI and thereafter by the bankers independently considering the Report submitted by Kamath Committee consisting of experts, the interference of the court is not called for.

Insufficient Relief packages

No   mandamus   can   be   issued   to   grant   some   more reliefs/packages. The court cannot interfere with the economic policy decisions on the ground that either they are not sufficient or efficacious and/or some more reliefs should have been granted. The Government might have their own priorities and the Government has to spend in various fields and in the present case like health, medicine, providing food etc.

Economic decisions are required to be taken keeping the larger economic scenario in mind and as such the Central Government has already given various reliefs and by providing various reliefs, they have already expanded huge financial burden. Further, the pandemic has caused stress to large and small businesses and the individuals who have lost jobs and livelihoods. By and large, everybody has suffered due to lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic.

“No State or country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects. That is why it only announces the financial reliefs/packages to the extent it is feasible.”

Extension of moratorium period

Extension of moratorium period is a policy decision.  Even otherwise, almost five months were available to eligible borrowers when circular dated 6.8.2020 was notified providing for a separate resolution mechanism for Covid19 related stressed assets.  Therefore, sufficient time was given to invoke the resolution mechanism.

Restriction of not charging interest on interest with respect to the loans up to Rs. 2 crores only for a few categories

In absence of any justification shown by the Government to restrict the relief of not charging interest on interest with respect to the loans up to Rs. 2 crores only and that too restricted to the aforesaid categories, the Court found such decision to be irrational.

It was also noted that the scheme dated 23.10.2020 granting relief/benefit of waiver of compound interest/interest on interest contains eligibility criteria and it provides that any borrower whose aggregate of all facilities with lending institution is more than Rs. 2 crores (sanctioned limit or outstanding amount) will not be eligible for ex-gratia payment under the said scheme.  Therefore, if the total exposure of the loan at the grant of the sanction is more than Rs. 2 crores, the borrower will be ineligible irrespective of the actual outstanding.

Giving an example, the Court explained

“if the borrower has been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 5 crores and has availed of the same, even though he might have repaid substantially bringing down the principal amount of less than Rs. 2 crores as on 29.02.2020, but because of the sanction of the loan amount of more than Rs. 2 crores, he will be ineligible. It also further provides that the outstanding amount should not be exceeded to Rs. 2 crores and for this purpose aggregate of all facilities with the lending institution will be reckoned.   Therefore, if a borrower, for example, MSME Category has availed and has outstanding of business loan of Rs. 1.99 crores and also has dues of its credit card of Rs. 1.10 lakhs, thereby making the aggregate to Rs. 2.10 crores, it stands ineligible. Therefore, the aforesaid conditions would be arbitrary and discriminatory.”

Further, the compound interest/interest on interest shall be chargeable on deliberate/willful default by the borrower to pay the installments due and payable. Therefore, it is in the nature of a penal interest.

By notification dated 27.03.2020, the Government has provided the deferment of the installments due and payable during the moratorium period.

“Once the payment of installment is deferred as per circular dated 27.03.2020, non-payment of the installment during the moratorium period cannot be said to be willful and therefore there is no justification to charge the interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium.”

Therefore, there shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium from any of the borrowers and whatever the amount is recovered by way of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium, the same shall be refunded and to be adjusted/given credit in the next instalment of the loan account.

[Small Scale Industries Manufacturers Association v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 246, decided on 23.03.2021]


*Judgment by: Justice MR Shah

Appearances before the Court by:

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastava, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibbal

For Union of India: Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta

For RBI: Senior Advocate V. Giri

For Indian Bank Association: Senior Advocate Harish Salve

For SBI: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi

ALSO READ

COVID-19| Seeking waiver of interest on interest for loan during the moratorium period? SC asks Govt to implement decision to forego compound interest on these 8 categories

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a breather to customers in the case relating to waiver of interest on loan during the moratorium period, the 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan*, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has directed that all steps to implement the decision dated 23.10.2020 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance be taken so that benefit to the eight categories contemplated in the affidavit can be extended.

The affidavit dated 23.10.2020, states that

“ (…) the decision taken by the Central Government for granting various reliefs for the COVID-19 pandemic for benefit of waiver of interest upto Rs.2 Crores in eight categories has been approved by the Union Cabinet in its meeting dated 21.10.2020 and Ministry of Finance has issued directions dated 23.10.2020 on the subject, which has been brought on record alongwith the affidavit.”

The eight categories are:

(i) MSME loans

(ii) Education loans

(iii) Housing loans

(iv) Consumer durable loans

(v) Credit card dues

(vi) Automobile loans

(vii) Personal loans to professionals

(viii) Consumption loans up

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Court that the Central Government is fully conscious of the difficulties faced by the various sectors and the stakeholders of various sectors and the Finance Ministry, after the outbreak of COVID-19, has taken several measures of reliefs dealing with the potential problems faced by several sectors and in several spheres of all financial worlds.

It was further highlighted that in pursuance of circular dated 23.10.2020,

“… the State Bank of India has informed that as on 13.11.2020, as per provisional, unaudited information received so far from various lending institutions, such lending institutions have released ex-gratia amount of an aggregate exceeding Rs.4,300 Crores in over 13.12 Crore accounts of borrowers covered under the Scheme.”

The Court will continue to hear the matter on 02.12.2020.

[Gajendra Sharma v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 963, decided on 27.11.2020]


*Justice Ashok Bhushan has penned this judgment

For petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajiv Dutta

For RBI: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate V. Giri and Advocate Ramesh Babu M.R.