No. Objective is different.
Not in my opinion atleast in this case with given facts, that's all.
"because negative balance/Dr balance and lien, signifies the same that the bank is supposed to recover the money as soon as money gets credited, for which RBI seems to have restricted." - You're wrong. With negative Balance, bank gets money in it's P&L by debiting account.
I do know how accounting principles, assumptions, standards, procedures work. So, better not indulge there. Also, FYI, I go through several provisions of law, case studies & even derive contention every day, so don't pass your judgment; wrong/right being conceited on one's opinion.
Negative Lien is just like instruction to recover at later stage - Here bank gets nothing until the account is credited with some fund.
How come they can recover the money, if money doesn't get credited subject to some exceptions? Exercise of lien only works in that way, they have the control and hence they have imposed it.
The different is clear and its upto you to accept or not.
It's not upto me, RBI has also addressed the same issue on the same ground for consumer protection.
Firstly, see the context (proposals), against such restrictive provision against banks. It's already mentioned in that particular notification.
By your logic, banks shouldn't recover charges at later stage if balance is unavailable at time of charge assessment.
It's not like my logic or your logic, it's in law and interpreting job is of judicial/ quasi judicial body. Even two judges interpret the law differently.
So, I am also free to make my own personal opinion with the available facts and reasoning behind it that doesn't mean everyone is gonna resonate with the same & I'm not asking for the same.
Extract of relevant guidelines:
(vi) It should be ensured that the balance in the savings account does not turn into negative balance solely on account of levy of charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance.
I'm not talking what's good or bad - I'm just explaining what's what.
I haven't raised concerns about moral policing rather the things that exist in the provision of laws itself. It's also not about good or bad. It clearly emphasizes that merely because of non maintenance of min. bal, banks are not supposed to make the account holder balance in neg., which means, as per my interpretation, bank can not charge, more than the balance available in the account merely in the name of non maintenance.
Firstly, RBI had restricted banks not to levy penal charges for non-maintenance of minimum balances in any inoperative account. Later, it had also restricted not to turn balance in savings account into negative, solely on the same account. Context & Chronology give more clarity.
And by putting a lien, if it's solely for non maintenance then, it's clearly evident that what the lien is for. Negative balance or unfavorable balance (which is restraint by RBI) signifies that account holder owes to bank and in the same way lien signifies, which usually gets automatically recovered as soon as the account gets funded. Just using different terminology, playing with the words, will not carry the indifferent motto.
Off topic, but to some extent, their malicious intent can be known & taken into consideration, when they fail to comply with regulations:
Additionally, in month of April-May only, RBI has imposed a penalty of Rs 61.40 lakh on BOB for non-compliance with certain directions on 'Financial Services provided by Banks' and 'Customer Service in Banks read with ‘Interest Rate on Deposits'. Not only BOB, even ICICI, Axis, BoM, IDBI on some other non compliance. Only found on statutory inspection for Supervisory Evaluation, and there could have been several other non compliances... which don't come out.
Even in past, BOB was restricted to on-board customers through mobile banking application. The list goes on and on.
Time and again they get penalized for non compliance even after having compliance department/team, they overlook/ignore and don't comply inorder to gain larger profit.
Accept or leave - I won't be replying more on this.
Not gonna accept with such reasoning. So will I.
