Toycher
3 years ago
I lost the job in covid 19.bank collection department toucher me for payment.
Lot of time I inform I lost the job how I can make the payment.collection department blackmail me for notice..i do not know wt I do..pls advice me..
Ayantika Mondal @ Prime Legal
Responded 3 years ago
A.Hi,
Draft a letter to the bank about your problems. Talk to a lawyer if the bank continues to send you notices without extension in time.
Draft a letter to the bank about your problems. Talk to a lawyer if the bank continues to send you notices without extension in time.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Hi,
Draft a letter to that bank about your grievances and ask for more time. Talk to a lawyer if you feel that they are not considering your request.
Draft a letter to that bank about your grievances and ask for more time. Talk to a lawyer if you feel that they are not considering your request.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Hi,
The legal notice is not a blackmail. You can write to them about your situation and seek for more time. Please contact a lawyer to draft a notice. If you feel that they are harassing you then you can talk to your lawyer.
The legal notice is not a blackmail. You can write to them about your situation and seek for more time. Please contact a lawyer to draft a notice. If you feel that they are harassing you then you can talk to your lawyer.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Dear Sir,
ICCI Bank Limited vs. Prakash Kaur case,
The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement reiterated its earlier stand that banks cannot deploy musclemen for recovery of loans from defaulters thus forcing them to end their lives.
"We deem it appropriate to remind the banks and other financial institutions that we live in a civilised country and are governed by the rule of law," a bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari said.
The court while dismissing the ICICI Bank's plea refused to delete the Delhi High Court's remarks that held the bank and its musclemen responsible for abetting a youth to commit suicide by humiliating him and taking away his motorcycle financed by the largest private sector bank.
It also asked the ICICI Bank to to pay Rs 25,000 as cost of this litigation to the respondents within three weeks and directed the Delhi Police to conclude the investigation against the bank expeditiously within three months, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations.
The court also directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to submit the investigation report in the Delhi High Court.
According to the court, complaints received by Reserve Bank regarding violation of the above guidelines and adoption of abusive practices followed by banks recovery agents would be viewed seriously.
Reiterating the RBI Guidelines on Engagement of Recovery Agents, the court said, "The Reserve Bank may consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period. In case of persistent breach of above guidelines, Reserve Bank may consider extending the period of ban or the area of ban."
"RBI had expressed its concern about the number of litigations filed against the banks in the recent past for engaging recovery agents who have purportedly violated the law," Justice Bhandari, writing the verdict for the bench, stated.
RBI in a letter accompanying its April 24, 2008 Guidelines had stated that it might consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period.
ICICI Bank had moved the apex court seeking deletion of some paragraphs in the High Court order which had said that "...the proximate cause of death of the deceased that led him to commit suicide was on account of humiliation caused by the Bank people from where loan was taken by him."
"The modus-operandi employed by the banks like ICICI for realisation of their loan amount and for recovering the possession of the vehicle against which loans are given is extra legal and by no stretch of imagination they can be permitted to employ musclemen and goons for recovery of their dues even from a defaulting party," the High Court had observed.
The High Court order had come on a petition filed by Shanti Devi Sharma, the deceased's mother, seeking a probe against the ICICI bank and its staff for the unlawful action, which led to the suicide of her 34-year old son Himanshu Dev Sharma.
Sharma had committed suicide in October 2005 by hanging himself at his house after he was allegedly intimidated and humiliated in front of his neighbours and family by recovery agents employed by the bank for recovering the loan amount taken for his motorcycle.
The ICICI Bank had contended that it was within its rights to recover loans and had followed the required procedure for recovering dues.
ICCI Bank Limited vs. Prakash Kaur case,
The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement reiterated its earlier stand that banks cannot deploy musclemen for recovery of loans from defaulters thus forcing them to end their lives.
"We deem it appropriate to remind the banks and other financial institutions that we live in a civilised country and are governed by the rule of law," a bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari said.
The court while dismissing the ICICI Bank's plea refused to delete the Delhi High Court's remarks that held the bank and its musclemen responsible for abetting a youth to commit suicide by humiliating him and taking away his motorcycle financed by the largest private sector bank.
It also asked the ICICI Bank to to pay Rs 25,000 as cost of this litigation to the respondents within three weeks and directed the Delhi Police to conclude the investigation against the bank expeditiously within three months, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations.
The court also directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to submit the investigation report in the Delhi High Court.
According to the court, complaints received by Reserve Bank regarding violation of the above guidelines and adoption of abusive practices followed by banks recovery agents would be viewed seriously.
Reiterating the RBI Guidelines on Engagement of Recovery Agents, the court said, "The Reserve Bank may consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period. In case of persistent breach of above guidelines, Reserve Bank may consider extending the period of ban or the area of ban."
"RBI had expressed its concern about the number of litigations filed against the banks in the recent past for engaging recovery agents who have purportedly violated the law," Justice Bhandari, writing the verdict for the bench, stated.
RBI in a letter accompanying its April 24, 2008 Guidelines had stated that it might consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period.
ICICI Bank had moved the apex court seeking deletion of some paragraphs in the High Court order which had said that "...the proximate cause of death of the deceased that led him to commit suicide was on account of humiliation caused by the Bank people from where loan was taken by him."
"The modus-operandi employed by the banks like ICICI for realisation of their loan amount and for recovering the possession of the vehicle against which loans are given is extra legal and by no stretch of imagination they can be permitted to employ musclemen and goons for recovery of their dues even from a defaulting party," the High Court had observed.
The High Court order had come on a petition filed by Shanti Devi Sharma, the deceased's mother, seeking a probe against the ICICI bank and its staff for the unlawful action, which led to the suicide of her 34-year old son Himanshu Dev Sharma.
Sharma had committed suicide in October 2005 by hanging himself at his house after he was allegedly intimidated and humiliated in front of his neighbours and family by recovery agents employed by the bank for recovering the loan amount taken for his motorcycle.
The ICICI Bank had contended that it was within its rights to recover loans and had followed the required procedure for recovering dues.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Ankur Goel @ Complete Law Shield
Responded 3 years ago
A.depends on which kind of loan.
notice is not blackmail, it is legal process.
lawyer can reply to notice with repayment plan according to loan type.
Hope this clarifies,
Advocate Ankur Goel (Complete Law Shield)
#YourLifeYourChoice
notice is not blackmail, it is legal process.
lawyer can reply to notice with repayment plan according to loan type.
Hope this clarifies,
Advocate Ankur Goel (Complete Law Shield)
#YourLifeYourChoice
Helpful
Helpful
Share
sanjay panda
Responded 3 years ago
A.This is a problem which can be resolved through customer care, banking ombudsman, and other concern statutory authorities . You may take help of lawyer for drafting of your complaint, grievance letter with justified grounds.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Jagannath S Pawar
Responded 3 years ago
A.Seek time.and if need be send them Legal Notice asking for little more time but be specific and genuine about ur intentions
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Read Related Answers
Credit card
Dear Client,
You can try to negotiate a settlement of your credit card dues with the Banks on your own if your pocket permits and the bank agrees, but sometimes it's typically done through third parti...
Harrassment and verbal attack on personal misfortune by Bajaj Finserve TVM
Dear Client,
As per the contractual obligation you are bound to repay the loan but the creditors have no right to harass you to recall the amount, there are rules set as per RBI guidelines as to how...
Complaint regarding not refunding fees.
Dear Client,
It's essential to communicate clearly with the center about your request for a refund and to provide any necessary documentation, such as receipts or enrollment agreements, to support y...
Insolvency
Dear Client,
Under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (which is now repealed as IBC Code 2016), you can file for bankruptcy if you are unable to repay a debt greater than ₹500. After analyzing whethe...
How to get stay order of property possession taken by NBFC
Dear Client,
Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act was introduced by way of an amendment in the year 2004 whereby (3A) the borrower is allowed to make representation or raise an objectio...
Read Blogs on Debt Collection
Debt Collection Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
