Call Back Request
Track Your Request
+91-7604047602 Legal Blog For Students Free Legal Advice Lawyer Login

Get Expert Advice Online
from Top Lawyers
in India

Read Blogs to get more Insights

Remedies against harassment by Recovery Agents

There are numerous cases of the oppressive and illegal conduct of recovery agents attempting to recover pending dues for the banks' benefit. In the past few years there have been many such instances, to showcase an example, an 81-year-old woman was seriously threatened by recovery agents, she got 375 threatening calls concerning her child's unpaid bank dues. After that, she moved to the police, and a case was filed against these agents. Another incident quoted as per media reports stated that a private bus was halted, and 42 travellers were held hostage for three hours by recovery agents, who needed to recover money from the travel company that owned the bus. These cases affirm that recovery agents/offices are feared in India.  A recovery agent seeks clients and organizations that owe instalments to banks. Many of these recovery agents collect the banks'clientspayment dues for a charge or a percentage of the total amount owed. These agents are generally a third-party as they are not a part of the original contract.  The individuals not just face humiliation before family or friends, but also face actual dangers. There are a few situations where the clients have committed suicide or faced serious medical conditions because of the recovery agents' threatening conduct.   Harassment  What is considered harassing by a lender? If the lender attempts to do any of the following, it could be viewed as harassment to recover the money owed. These actions include :·        reaching people multiple times each day, or promptly in the first part of the day or the late evening.;·        seeking people on social media platforms, for example, Twitter and Facebook;·        putting pressure on people to sell their home or take out greater credit;·        threatening or continuously contacting relatives of the borrower;·        utilizing more than one debt collector, in turn, to pursue people for instalment;·        using desk work or business logos that give off an impression of being official when they're not, for instance sending people letters that seem as though they represent court forms;·        pressurizing people to pay all the money, or in bigger instalments when they can't afford to;·        attempting to humiliate people in front of the general public;·        telling another person aboutyour debts or using someone else to pass on messages, for example, a neighbour or a relative. What isn't considered harassing by a lender? Not all activities that a lender conducts can be labelled asharassment. Leasers are permitted to find a way to get back the amount customers owe them. These include:  ·        sending updates and demands for instalment  ·        calling at customer's home, as long as this is at a sensible time  ·        making a court motion.   In a judgment (Smart Security Secret Service Agency vs State Bank of India) the High Court of Kerala decided that solid arm strategies to recover credits by Banks and other Financial Institutions are unlawful. Expressing that the use of solid arm strategies was unlawful, deceptive and against the insurance of public interest, notwithstanding being against the general approach, the High Court guided financial organizations to adhere to the fair treatment of law in an authorized way. Likewise, this judgment was sent to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to guarantee that similar occurrences would not happen later. Although the RBI has laid numerous principles against banks delegating these sorts of recovery agents, these agents are still appointed by the banks.   Legal Remedies  Legal Remedies available to defaulter in the case of harassment by recovery agents ·        Filing a complaint at the police station: A proper complaint should be filed against the Bank and the recovery office. However, if the police do not file a complaint, the magistrate can be approached.  ·        An injunction suit against the bank and recovery agents: A civil injunction suit with an ad-interim relief can be filed in the civil court against the bank and recovery organization. It should be possible to guarantee that bank authorities and recovery agents don't visit a person's home to recover the dues.  ·        File an objection with the Reserve Bank of India: After getting a few public objections against banks and seeing a few cases recorded against the harassing recovery method, the RBI prescribed certain norms for therecovery agents in order to govern the approach towards defaulters. In this manner, if the defaulters feel undermined, they have an option to contact the organization and file a legal complaint. ·        Defamation suit: If the debt recovery depends on incorrect data that prompted the deficiency of a person's CIBIL score, they can file a defamation suit against the bank and recovery organization.  ·        Trespass objection: On the off chance that the recovery agents of the Bank illegally invade someone's home without approved consent, at that point a trespass complaint can be filed against them for disregarding an individual's rights.  ·        Extortion grievance:If  the recovery agents forcefully recovered the money, an extortion case can be filed against. ·        Complaint to your Bank: Practically all banks have a complaint department. The client can move that department and can communicate on this matter. Generally, after recording the grievance, the client needs to wait for 30 days to tackle the matter or get an answer. ·        The banking ombudsman: On the off chance that the Bank does not address the issue/grievance, within the specified days, the banking ombudsman can be approached. RBI selects such individual as a senior authority who redresses the grievances by clients. The ombudsman should give a lawfully binding decision to call for settlement between the Bank and the client. The complaints identified with credit cards are filed with the ombudsman whose territorial jurisdiction the client's billing address is found. Legal remedies accessible to Banks and NBFCs for credit recovery·        When a bank or financial institution needs to recover any individual's debts; it uses Original Application (OA) to the Debt Recovery Tribunal against such individual. ·        The secured lenders reserve a right to implement Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI ACT,2002). It allows banks or other financial institutions to auction private or business properties to recover credits. The provision of the SARFAESI Act, s applicable if the amount of the NPA loan amount surpasses INR One Lakhs and NPA credit account is more than 20% of the principal and interest. ·        Credit taken from the Bank is under an agreement between the Bank and the borrower; hence, the general laws like Law of Contract, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, Specific Performance and so on, apply to all banking transactions relying on the nature of the transaction. ·        In India, the remedy accessible to moneylenders is to file an ordinary money suit for recovery against the defaulting borrower for the pending amounts. Legal remedies accessible to corporates for advance recovery·        If the borrower neglects to repay, the company can make legal moves against the borrowers. A summary suit can be instituted under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Court (CPC) in a competent court lying under the jurisdiction. ·        Likewise, the general laws like the Law of Contract, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, Specific Performance and so forth, apply to all corporate transactions relying on the idea of the transaction. ·        As an external court settlement, the matter can likewise be settled through Arbitration, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Court PrecedentICICI Bank vs Shanti Devi Sharma &Ors, 2008: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized its stand that banks can't send musclemen to recover advances from defaulters, subsequently compelling them to take their lives. A Bench consisting of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari stated that they considered it proper to remind the banks and other financial organizations that we live in a socialized country and are administered by the standard of law. While rejecting the ICICI Bank's plea, the court refused to delete the Delhi High Court's comments that considered the Bank and its musclemen liable for abetting a person to commit suicide by threatening him.As indicated by the court, Reserve Bank's complaints concerning infringement of the above rules and adoption of oppressive practices followed by banks' recovery agents would be seen genuinely. Emphasizing the RBI Guidelines on Engagement of Recovery Agents, the court held that the Reserve Bank might consider forcing a restriction on a bank from engaging with recovery agents in a specific area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period. If there should be an occurrence of tenacious break of the above rules, Reserve Bank may consider expanding the time of ban or the area of the ban.  Justice Bhandari, writing the Bench's decision, expressed that RBI had communicated its concern about the number of prosecutions recorded against the banks in the recent past for engaging with recovery agents who have purportedly abused the law. ICICI Bank had moved the Supreme Court looking for the deletion of certain paragraphs in the High Court order which had said that the general reason for the death of the deceased that drove him to commit suicide was because of humiliation brought about by the Bank. The High Court had noticed that the modus-operandi by the banks like ICICI for the acknowledgement of their advance money and for recovering the ownership of the vehicle against which advances are given extra-legitimate, and in no way, they can be allowed to utilize musclemen and hooligans for the recovery of their loan even from a defaulting party. The High Court order had gone ahead with an appeal filed by Shanti Devi Sharma, the deceased's mom, looking for a probe against the ICICI bank and its staff for the unlawful activity, which prompted the suicide of her 34-year-old child Himanshu Dev Sharma. Sharma committed suicide in October 2005 by hanging himself at his home after he was supposedly threatened and humiliated before his neighbours and family by recovery agents used by the Bank to recover the advance money taken to buy his motorcycle. Conclusion and current normsA bank and corporate organizations' performance analysis can't be exclusively founded on resources mobilized or advances made. Resource mobilization, the arrangement of resources, and reusing resources are three primary places of banking and corporate business tasks. In this way, recovery is similarly a significant action. Any deferral in recovery hampers the reuse of assets, and banks' capacity to restore the advances to financial institutions is also hindered, because of which honest borrowers suffer. Consequently, the quick recovery of credit for the proper working of a business is fundamental. The Reserve Bank of India has issuedrules under Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) to prepare recovery agents not to disturb borrowers by setting up a fair practices code, and a complaint redressal system that will likewise be set up for quicker resolution of genuine objections made by the borrowers, as stated by the RBI. Additionally, RBI held that the ARCs should share the name and number of the assigned complaint redressal official with the borrowers. The mechanism will fundamentally review genuine complaints, which incorporates dealing with administrations furnished by the outsourced office alongside the recovery agents.

Posted By

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar Retired Judge

1 week ago

Go to Blog

Abetment to Suicide an offence under Section 306 o...

A person is accountable for abetment to suicide when any of the following conditions are fulfilled:·        He/She instigates someone to commit suicide.·        He/She takes part in a conspiracy to make a person commit suicide.·        He/She helps the victim deliberately so he can commit suicide by doing an act or not doing something that he was bound to do. Section 108 of the IPC defines the abettor. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of a crime or the commission of such an act, which would have been an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same purpose or information as that of the abettor.In accordance to Section 306 of Indian Penal Code-If any individual commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, he/she shall be punished with the sentence of either for a term, which may extend for a period of ten years and shall also be liable to fine.                     Section 306  Section 306 states that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Abetment of suicide is an offence tried in a Sessions court and is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable in nature.Cognizable offence: A police officer can make an arrest without a warrant from a court.Non-bailable offence: Bail is granted to the accused at the discretion of the court, and not as a matter of right.Non-compoundable offence: The case cannot be withdrawn by the complainant even when the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise. The court will not allow withdrawal of a case involving a non-compoundable offence.  How did section 306 come into force  Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in order to prevent sati. In those days the tradition of sati was widespread in India. The suffering of the widows used to lead them to commit Sati. In order to eliminate this iniquity, this provision was added consequently. It was established that wife had committed suicide consequent to ill-treatment meted out to her by mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband. It was held that these persons were liable to be convicted under sections 306 for abetting her to commit suicide. Due to not bringing sufficient dowry, the accused was ill-treating the deceased. The evidence on record made out case of persistent and unabated harassment and cruelty. This compelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. The accused’s husband was held guilty under sections 306 and 498-A.Before the offence under section 306 can be proved, the presence of mens rea is of utmost importance. To hold a person guilty of abetment to commit suicide under the said provision, there has to be a clear mens rea on his part to instigate another to commit suicide. There should be objective to aggravate, incite or persuade the doing of the act by the other individual. The suicide must necessarily have been committed, also, a person may abet suicide by words or conduct, or both. A person is said to have instigated another to commit suicide when he, by his acts or omissions or a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the other was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Words that a person speaks in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention of making anyone commit suicide, does not amount to abetment. Some active role in the commission of suicide by the accused needs to be proved to hold him responsible for abetting it. Without action on the part of the accused person to instigate or aid the deceased person committing suicide, the conviction is not sustainable.  The scope and ambit of section 306 of IPC Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide. In the landmark judgement of M. Mohan v State, the Apex Court held that there should be a close link between the act of the accused and the act of committing suicide. If the link is not present, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. Meagre threats of involving the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be held to equivalent to instigation. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support to the commission of the offence. In Gurcharan Singh v. the State of Punjab, it is mentioned that the necessary ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused to aid or bring about the commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or deficiency of any of these constituents would militate against this condemnation.Presumption of abetment As to offence of abetment to commit suicide, section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that (a) if a married lady commits suicide within seven years of her marriage; (b) if her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of the term as defined in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the Court may raise the presumption of the fact that the husband or such relative of her husband abetted the suicide. As to the presumption of abetment to commit suicide dealt with in section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is applicable when the husband or any relative of his is guilty of cruelty to the wife, he or she is punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In short the first requisite for attracting the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, must be proved that the wife was subjected to cruelty as defined in section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860. The simple fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a phase of seven years of her marriage, the assumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 would not automatically apply. The presumption under Section 113-A is discretionary, and the Court can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected to, having regard to the meaning of the word “cruelty” in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the case of Appasaheb versus the State of Maharashtra (the important issue of offences related to dowry) Appasaheb was convicted for the death of his wife, Bhimabai, after she consumed poison. A case was registered against him and his mother under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty against the woman for dowry), and 306 (abetment of suicide). Though the accused were acquitted for the offence of cruelty and abetment, the husband was convicted on the charge of dowry death. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Bench quashed the conviction and said the statement of the mother of the deceased did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was a demand for money and consequent beating.In the present case, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is at odds with the purpose of the legislation. Rather than looking at the enactment as social reform legislation, the judgment equates it with the legislation in the area of any trade, business or transaction.  Proof of concept Instigation has to be collected from the situation of the case. Not all cases may be of direct evidence about instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the state of affairs produced by the accused are such that a person feels very aggravated and finds it difficult to continue survival.  In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal jurisprudence that was laid down in its earlier judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumarv. the State of Chhattisgarh and held that where the accused by his acts or continuous course of behaviour creates such circumstances that the deceased person was left with no other substitute except the option to commit suicide, an instigation may be indirect. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be recognized that: ·        The accused kept on frustrating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be an unruly stillness until the deceased responded or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful oversight or behaviour to make the deceased move forward more rapidly in a forward direction; and ·        That the accused had the purpose of aggravating urge or persuading the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the way noted above, undoubtedly, mens rea is a necessary element of instigation.  Conclusion  Abetment of suicide, be it either instigating the victim or aiding the victim in the commission of the suicide. The accused can defeat the penal provisions dealing with such offence very easily, as the scope of the provision is limited to only three categories, which is actually a loophole. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement to amend the provisions which deals with the offence of abetment, in such a manner that the criminals are not unable to evade the legislations, mend the cases suiting their own requirements, and break away from the punishments. In addition, the laws are needed to be interpreted not strictly in a confined manner. However, according to the facts and circumstances of each case so that justice prevails. The current definition of abetment falls short. The section covers abetment by way of aid, instigation and conspiracy, but there are instances where the actions of the person do not strictly fall in these three categories but pressurize a person to commit suicide.

Posted By

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar Retired Judge

1 week ago

Go to Blog

{{ item.userName }}

{{ }}

{{ item.createdOn }}

Harsh Arora


: {{lawyerExperience}}


: Delhi |

State Bar Council

: Delhi

Professional Summary

I aim at establishing my self as a litigation counsel particularly in the field of civil, commercial litigation, and arbitration(Domestic)

Client Testimonials

Top Responding Lawyers

Experience: 12 Year(s)
Experience: 5 Year(s)
Experience: 11 Year(s)
Experience: 11 Year(s)
Experience: 3 Year(s)
Experience: 17 Year(s)
Experience: 24 Year(s)
Experience: 11 Year(s)
Experience: 17 Year(s)
Experience: 13 Year(s)
South Delhi
Experience: 7 Year(s)
New Delhi
Experience: 21 Year(s)
Experience: 7 Year(s)
Experience: 14 Year(s)
Mumbai suburban
Experience: 5 Year(s)
Experience: 19 Year(s)
Experience: 5 Year(s)
Experience: 22 Year(s)
New Delhi
Experience: 22 Year(s)
Experience: 14 Year(s)
Experience: 40 Year(s)
Experience: 20 Year(s)
Experience: 6 Year(s)


Are you sure you want to request for this Advocate's number?

Invalid login details ! Please check your password.

Please provide your registered email and you will receive a four digit OTP number in your email and registered phone number

Yes, I understand and agree to the Vidhikarya User Agreement and Privacy Policy
There is no user registered with this email !
info OTP will be sent to your Phone Number linked with the registered Email ID.
An OTP(One Time Password) has been sent to your registered phone number
. Please enter the 4 digit OTP number that has been sent to your number and click Verify.
If you haven't received any OTP, please click the Resend button below.
We have just sent an OTP to your provided phone number ! Please provide the OTP in the above field. Try again after

Please mention how you would like to be contacted

Please select how would you like to Consult

Review and Confirm

Consultation Request for Advocate
Charges : 
 (with 18% GST)
Find Lawyers by Location

Download the Clients App on

Vidhikarya App on Android Platform

Contact Details

505-A, Terminus Building,
Newtown, Action Area I,
Kolkata 700156

Download the Lawyers App on

Vidhikarya App on Android Platform

Certified by Startup India, DPIIT


Payment secured by :

PayUMoney PayPal net banking
visa master maestro