Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified when applications open.
The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016 is listed for discussion in Rajya Sabha today.[i] The Bill aims to expeditiously resolve cases of debt recovery by making amendments to four laws, including the (i) Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and (ii) the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 The 1993 Act created Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTS) to adjudicated debt recovery cases. This was done to move cases out of civil courts, with the idea of reducing time taken for debt recovery, and for providing technical expertise. This was aimed at assisting banks and financial institutions in recovering outstanding debt from defaulters. Over the years, it has been observed that the DRTs do not comply with the stipulated time frame of resolving disputes within six months. This has resulted in delays in disposal, and a high pendency of cases before the DRTs. Between March 2013 and December 2015, the number of pending cases before the DRTs increased from 43,000 to 70,000. With an average disposal rate of 10,000 cases per year, it is estimated that these DRTs will take about six to seven years to clear the existing backlog of cases.[ii] Experts have also observed that the DRT officers, responsible for debt recovery, lack experience in dealing with such cases. Further, these officers are not adequately trained to adjudicate debt-related matters.[iii] The 2016 Bill proposes to increase the retirement age of Presiding Officers of DRTs, and allows for their reappointment. This will allow the existing DRT officers to serve for longer periods of time. However, such a move may have limited impact in expanding the pool of officers in the DRTs. The 2016 Bill also has a provision which allows Presiding Officers of tribunals, established under other laws, to head DRTs. Currently, there are various specialised tribunals functioning in the country, like the Securities Appellate Tribunal, the National Company Law Tribunal, and theNational Green Tribunal. It remains to be seen if the skills brought in by officers of these tribunals will mirror the specialisation required for adjudicating debt-related matters. Further, the 1993 Act provides that banks and financial institutions must file cases in those DRTs that have jurisdiction over the defendant’s area of residence or business. In addition, the Bill allows cases to be filed in DRTs having jurisdiction over the bank branch where the debt is due. The Bill also provides that certain procedures, such as presentation of claims by parties and issue of summons by DRTs, can now be undertaken in electronic form (such as filing them on the DRT website). Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 The 2002 Act allows secured creditors (lenders whose loans are backed by a security) to take possession over a collateral security if the debtor defaults in repayment. This allows creditors to sell the collateral security and recover the outstanding debt without the intervention of a court or a tribunal. This takeover of collateral security is done with the assistance of the District Magistrate (DM), having jurisdiction over the security. Experts have noted that the absence of a time-limit for the DM to dispose such applications has resulted in delays.[iv] The 2016 Bill proposes to introduce a 30-day time limit within which the DM must pass an order for the takeover of a security. Under certain circumstances, this time-limit may be extended to 60 days. The 2002 Act also regulates the establishment and functioning of Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs). ARCs purchase Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) from banks at a discount. This allows banks to recover partial payment for an outstanding loan account, thereby helping them maintain cash flow and liquidity. The functioning of ARCs has been explained in Figure 1. It has been observed that the setting up of ARCs, along with the use out-of-court systems to take possession of the collateral security, has created an environment conducive to lending.[iii] However, a few concerns related to the functioning of ARCs have been expressed over the years. These concerns include a limited number of buyers and capital entering the ARC business, and high transaction costs involved in the transfer of assets in favour of these companies due to the levy of stamp duty.[iii] In this regard, the Bill proposes to exempt the payment of stamp duty on transfer of financial assets in favour of ARCs. This benefit will not be applicable if the asset has been transferred for purposes other than securitisation or reconstruction (such as for the ARCs own use or investment). Consequently, the Bill amends the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Bill also provides greater powers to the Reserve Bank of India to regulate ARCs. This includes the power to carry out audits and inspections either on its own, or through specialised agencies. With the passage of the Bankruptcy Code in May 2016, a complete overhaul of the debt recovery proceedings was envisaged. The Code allows creditors to collectively take action against a defaulting debtor, and complete this process within a period of 180 days. During the process, the creditors may choose to revive a company by changing the repayment schedule of outstanding loans, or decide to sell it off for recovering their dues. While the Bankruptcy Code provides for collective action of creditors, the proposed amendments to the SARFAESI and DRT Acts seek to streamline the processes of creditors individually taking action against the defaulting debtor. The impact of these changes on debt recovery scenario in the country, and the issue of rising NPAs will only become clear in due course of time. [i] Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016, http://www.prsindia.org/administrator/uploads/media/Enforcement%20of%20Security/Enforcement%20of%20Security%20Bill,%202016.pdf. [ii] Unstarred Question No. 1570, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Finance, Answered on March 4, 2016. [iii] ‘A Hundred Small Steps’, Report of the Committee on Financial Sector Reforms, Planning Commission, September 2008, http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_fr/cfsr_all.pdf. [iv] Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission, March 2013, http://finmin.nic.in/fslrc/fslrc_report_vol1.pdf.
The Election Commission has announced the schedule for the election of the President of India. The last date for nominations is June 30, elections will be held on July 19, and counting will take place on July 22. The BJD and AIADMK have proposed the name of Mr. P.A. Sangma. The Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress have suggested three names. Other parties or alliances have not announced any contenders. Our calculations show that no single party or alliance has the numbers to unilaterally elect candidates of its choice. A candidate will need 5,48,507 votes to be elected as the President. If the UPA were to vote as a consolidated block, its vote tally would reach 4,49,847 (41% of the total votes). Among the Congress allies, Trinamool holds the largest number of votes (47,898). If Trinamool decides to support some other candidate, the UPA tally will fall to 4,01,949 votes (37% of the total). The votes held by the major alliances are given in the table below:
Coalition | Value of votes | Percentage of total votes |
UPA |
4,49,847 |
41.0% |
NDA |
3,03,912 |
27.7% |
Left |
52,282 |
4.8% |
Bahujan Samaj Party |
43,723 |
4.0% |
Samajwadi Party |
68,943 |
6.3% |
Biju Janata Dal |
30,215 |
2.8% |
AIADMK |
36,216 |
3.3% |
Others |
1,11,874 |
10.2% |
Total |
10,97,012 |
|
Minimum required to be elected |
5,48,507 |
|
A detailed break-up of votes held by each party is given in the table below:
Party | Value of votes | Percentage of total votes |
Indian National Congress |
3,31,855 |
30.30% |
Bharatiya Janata Party |
2,32,454 |
21.20% |
Samajwadi Party |
68,943 |
6.30% |
All India Trinamool Congress |
47,898 |
4.40% |
Bahujan Samaj Party |
43,723 |
4.00% |
Janata Dal (United) |
41,574 |
3.80% |
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) |
36,216 |
3.30% |
Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
35,734 |
3.30% |
Biju Janata Dal |
30,215 |
2.80% |
Nationalist Congress Party |
24,058 |
2.20% |
Independent |
23,830 |
2.20% |
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) |
21,780 |
2.00% |
Telugu Desam Party |
21,256 |
1.90% |
Shiv Sena |
18,320 |
1.70% |
Shiromani Akali Dal |
11,564 |
1.10% |
Communist Party of India |
9,758 |
0.90% |
Rashtriya Janata Dal |
8,816 |
0.80% |
Others |
7,420 |
0.70% |
Janata Dal (Secular) |
6,138 |
0.60% |
Jammu and Kashmir National Conference |
5,556 |
0.50% |
Rashtriya Lok Dal |
5,412 |
0.50% |
Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhaga (DMDK) |
5,104 |
0.50% |
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha |
4,584 |
0.40% |
Muslim League Kerala State Committee |
4,456 |
0.40% |
Indian National Lok Dal |
4,068 |
0.40% |
All India Forward Bloc |
3,961 |
0.40% |
Jharkhand Vikas Morcha |
3,352 |
0.30% |
Asom Gana Parishad |
3,284 |
0.30% |
Telangana Rashtra Samiti |
3,044 |
0.30% |
Revolutionary Socialist Party |
2,829 |
0.30% |
Bodoland People's Front |
2,808 |
0.30% |
All India United Democratic Front |
2,796 |
0.30% |
Praja Rajyam Party |
2,664 |
0.20% |
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena |
2,275 |
0.20% |
Kerala Congress (M) |
2,076 |
0.20% |
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen |
1,744 |
0.20% |
Nagaland People's Front |
1,722 |
0.20% |
Sikkim Democratic Front |
1,640 |
0.10% |
Peoples Democratic Party |
1,512 |
0.10% |
Bahujan Vikas Aaghadi |
1,058 |
0.10% |
Lok Janasakti Party |
957 |
0.10% |
All Jharkhand Students Union |
880 |
0.10% |
Haryana Janhit Congress |
820 |
0.10% |
Mizo National Front |
732 |
0.10% |
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam |
708 |
0.10% |
Swabhimani Paksha |
708 |
0.10% |
Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi |
708 |
0.10% |
YSR Congress Party |
708 |
0.10% |
Peasants and Workers Party |
700 |
0.10% |
Pattali Makkal Katchi |
528 |
0.00% |
Manithaneya Makkal Katch |
352 |
0.00% |
Puthiya Tamilaga |
352 |
0.00% |
All India NR Congress |
240 |
0.00% |
J&K National Panthers Party |
216 |
0.00% |
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) |
176 |
0.00% |
United Democratic Party |
153 |
0.00% |
Lok Satta Party |
148 |
0.00% |
Loktantrik Samajwadi Party |
129 |
0.00% |
J&K Democratic Party Nationalist |
72 |
0.00% |
People's Democratic Front |
72 |
0.00% |
Uttarakhand Kranti Dal |
64 |
0.00% |
Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party |
60 |
0.00% |
People's Party of Arunachal |
32 |
0.00% |
Total |
10,97,012 |
|
Notes: The electoral college for the Presidential election consists of the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies. The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the total value of votes polled. Each MP/ MLA’s vote has a pre-determined value based on the population they represent. For instance, an MP’s vote has a value of 708, an MLA from UP has a vote value of 208 and an MLA from Sikkim has a vote value of 7 (Note that all MPs, irrespective of the constituency or State they represent, have equal vote value). Parties in various coalitions: UPA: Congress, Trinamool, DMK, NCP,Rashtriya Lok Dal, J&K National Conference, Muslim League Kerala State Committee, Kerala Congress (M), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Sikkim Democratic Front, Praja Rajyam Party, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi NDA: BJP, JD(U), Shiv Sena, Shiromani Akali Dal, Janata Party Left: CPI(M), CPI, Revolutionary Socialist Party, All India Forward Bloc