HomeNotificationNon-compliance With RBI’s Directions On ‘Interest Rate On Deposits’: RBI Imposes Monetary...

Non-compliance With RBI’s Directions On ‘Interest Rate On Deposits’: RBI Imposes Monetary Penalty On Federal Bank Limited 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed the monetary penalty on Federal Bank Limited. 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has, by an order dated February 04, 2025, imposed a monetary penalty of ₹27.30 lakh on Federal Bank Limited (the bank) for non-compliance with certain directions issued by RBI on ‘Interest Rate on Deposits’. 

This penalty has been imposed in exercise of powers conferred on RBI under the provisions of Section 47A(1)(c) read with Sections 46(4)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

The statutory Inspection for Supervisory Evaluation (ISE 2023) of the bank was conducted by RBI with reference to its financial position as on March 31, 2023. Based on the supervisory findings of non-compliance with RBI directions and related correspondence in that regard, a notice was issued to the bank advising it to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on it for its failure to comply with the said directions.

After considering the bank’s reply to the notice, additional submissions made by it and oral submissions made during the personal hearing, RBI found that the following charge against the bank was sustained, warranting imposition of monetary penalty.

The bank had opened certain savings deposit accounts in the name of ineligible entities.

This action is based on deficiencies in regulatory compliance and is not intended to pronounce upon the validity of any transaction or agreement entered into by the bank with its customers. Further, imposition of monetary penalty is without prejudice to any other action that may be initiated by RBI against the bank.

Click Here To Read The Press Release

Read More: Whether Separate Notification For Cross-Empowerment Of State Officials Under GST Act Is Required ? These Two High Court Differs

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Arbitration Act is a Complete Code: Legal Heirs Must Challenge Arbitral Award Under S. 34, Not Article 227: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that legal representatives of a deceased party cannot bypass...

GST Arrest: Allahabad HC Allows Habeas Corpus Despite Its Earlier Bail Rejection & Pending SLP Before SC

In a striking development raising critical questions on the scope of constitutional remedies in...

Supreme Court Orders Back Wages from 1993, Slams Employer for Delayed Regularisation of Daily Wage Worker

The Supreme Court held that an employee illegally deprived of regularisation cannot be denied...

Essential Qualification Can’t Be Substituted by Higher Degree; Appointment Without Required Experience Invalid: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has held that essential eligibility conditions prescribed in recruitment...

More like this

Arbitration Act is a Complete Code: Legal Heirs Must Challenge Arbitral Award Under S. 34, Not Article 227: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that legal representatives of a deceased party cannot bypass...

GST Arrest: Allahabad HC Allows Habeas Corpus Despite Its Earlier Bail Rejection & Pending SLP Before SC

In a striking development raising critical questions on the scope of constitutional remedies in...

Supreme Court Orders Back Wages from 1993, Slams Employer for Delayed Regularisation of Daily Wage Worker

The Supreme Court held that an employee illegally deprived of regularisation cannot be denied...