The court said, “Despite being sympathetic to the situation in which the petitioners find themselves, I am unable to grant the relief sought in this petition. The petition, with the application pending, is, therefore, dismissed but with costs Without orders.” In its order dated 30 November.
The court recorded that PMC Bank was restrained for the first time in 2019 from disbursing an amount exceeding Rs 1,000 from the total balance in each savings account or current account or deposit account and subsequently restricted this amount considering the financial position of the bank. 40,000 was raised to Rs. The situation is getting affected to a great extent due to the fraud done on it by some persons.
The court noted that the last circular under challenge allowed withdrawal of Rs 50,000. Petitioners, who collectively have fixed deposits of more than Rs.90 lakh in Punjab Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Ltd (PMC Bank) argued that the RBI’s action was arbitrary and denied access to their savings to innocent depositors, including senior citizens.
The petitioners also alleged discrimination by the authorities on the ground that another struggling bank, yes bankwas protected by the timely implementation of reconstruction plans from the active intervention of Union of India And in the case of RBI, PMC Bank no such intervention happened in “good times”.
The court observed that the original directions were issued in an “emergency situation” and the restrictions imposed on depositors were severe, but subsequently the limits were updated if the RBI found it feasible to do so and as per the final circulars, which allow 50,000 withdrawal, more than 78 per cent of bank depositors will be able to withdraw their entire balance.
“Such an exercise of administrative agility aimed at mitigating the hardship to the depositors cannot be criticized on the ground that it reflects non-application of mind. In fact, 26.09.2019, 03.10.2019, 14.10 A perusal of the Directions .2019.2019 and dated 05.11.2019 reveal that the liquidity position of PMC Bank was under review, and consequential enhancements were being offered to depositors.Last circular (05.11.2019) It also stated that based on the exemption, more than 78 per cent, the court said, of bank depositors would be able to withdraw their entire balance.
The court further noted that during the pendency of the petition, a scheme was also approved in respect of PMC Bank, which was criticized by the petitioner, but it was beyond the scope of the present proceedings to examine the same.
The court said it was “unimpressed” by the submission that the Center and the RBI were bound to participate in the restructuring plan of PMC Bank, in line with the plan in the case of Yes Bank.
“He (the petitioner) has compared the terms of the reconstruction schemes in the two cases to suggest that the depositors of PMC Bank are being unfairly treated. I am unable to proceed on this ground. The reasonableness of the reconstruction scheme is not the issue Is.” Writ Petition. I am called upon in this matter only to examine whether the RBI has been able to explain the difference between the two cases and the impact of that difference on the ability of each bank to rebuild. To that extent, I am satisfied that she has been able to do so,” the court said.
The court also noted that the Bombay High Court in a case held that the material placed before the RBI was sufficient to justify action with regard to ban on withdrawals in the case of PMC Bank and that view has been upheld . Supreme court,