Banking and Insurance News, Law Insights | Expert News at LegalWiki

Banking & Insurance

SEBI Bars 26 From Markets Over Price Manipulation In SME Stock DU Digital

SEBI has barred 26 individuals from the securities market for up to two years after finding coordinated price manipulation in SME-listed DU Digital Technologies.

The regulator ordered disgorgement of ₹98.78 lakh with 12% interest and imposed penalties totalling ₹1.87 crore.

The action followed a sharp rise of nearly 1,393% in DU Digital’s share price between August 2021 and March 2023, which triggered a detailed probe. SEBI found that the entities used deceptive trading strategies to artificially inflate price and trading volumes, rejecting claims that the transactions were genuine delivery-based investments.

The order underscores heightened regulatory scrutiny over market manipulation on SME platforms.

Read Details / a day ago

MananBookmark

SEBI Cancels Research Analyst Registration Misused by Provision Store Owner

SEBI cancelled the Research Analyst registration of Purooskhan after confirming he had no role in securities market research or investment advice.

The decision stemmed from a SCORES complaint, where a website had wrongly projected SEBI registration and used his SEBI registration number without authorisation, offering paid “sure-shot” trading calls, zero-risk claims, and fund-doubling assurances, leading to ≈₹4-lakh investor losses despite a ₹50,000 payment.

SEBI observed he operated a 100-sq-ft provision store in Madurai and was unfamiliar with securities market operations during hearing.

The regulator also flagged sharing of email ID and account password as a compliance lapse.

Read Details / 2 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Finance Ministry Discusses Faster Case Disposal and Higher Recoveries Through DRTs

The Finance Ministry has discussed measures to speed up case disposal before Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), with a focus on faster recovery in high-value cases.

The deliberations took place during a colloquium involving Chairpersons of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals, Presiding Officers of DRTs, public and private sector banks, and the Indian Banks’ Association.

The meeting reviewed procedural reforms, monitoring mechanisms for banks, and best practices followed by high-performing DRTs. Proposals for amendments to the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were also considered.

The Ministry emphasised capacity-building initiatives, including structured training for tribunal staff and authorised bank officers, to improve efficiency and recovery outcomes.

Read Details / 3 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Chennai CBI Court Convicts Company, Four Directors In ₹5.75 Crore Andhra Bank Fraud Case

A Special CBI Court in Chennai has convicted M/s D.N. International Ltd. and its four directors in a ₹5.75 crore bank fraud case linked to Andhra Bank’s Mowbrays Road Branch during 1999–2000.

The Court found that the company had fraudulently availed credit facilities and diverted the sanctioned funds for purposes other than those approved, causing wrongful loss to the bank.

Following the CBI’s investigation, directors Ketan A. Shah, Mukesh A. Shah, Ashwin H. Shah and Rashmikant Shah were each sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹4 lakh.

The company was also fined ₹4 lakh.

Read Details / 3 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Bombay High Court Stays Bank Action Against Anil Ambani in Fraud Classification Case

The Bombay High Court stayed coercive steps by Bank of Baroda, IDBI Bank, and Indian Overseas Bank against Anil Ambani in fraud-classification proceedings.

The case arose after consortium banks commissioned a forensic audit in 2019 into Reliance Communications and group entities for the 2013–2017 period.

The Court held that the 2020 audit report by BDO LLP could not be relied upon since it was not signed by a chartered accountant with a valid certificate of practice. It observed that the RBI’s 2024 Master Directions on Fraud require external forensic auditors to hold statutory qualifications.

Pending further consideration, the Court restrained banks from proceeding with show-cause notices or taking further fraud-related action.

[Anil Ambani v. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.]

Read Judgment / 10 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Statutory Appeal Cannot Be Rendered Illusory Due to DRAT Vacancies: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that a statutory appellate remedy cannot be defeated due to tribunal vacancies, recusals, or administrative hurdles.

The Court was dealing with a case where auction purchasers were unable to pursue their appeal because of obstacles at the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

Observing that the litigants were not at fault, the Court ruled that writ jurisdiction may be exercised when a statutory appeal becomes ineffective in practice. It emphasised that procedural or institutional failures cannot deny parties meaningful access to justice.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the pending appeal be entertained within seven days, reaffirming that statutory rights cannot be frustrated by systemic shortcomings.

[True Value Marketing Services Pvt Ltd. v. UOI]

Read Order / 11 days ago

MananBookmark

Parliamentary Panel Reviews SEBI Ombudsman Powers Under Securities Markets Code Bill, 2025

A parliamentary standing committee is reviewing the Securities Markets Code, 2025 Bill, with a focus on the powers and scope of the proposed SEBI ombudsman for investor grievances.

The Bill envisages the designation of officers within the Securities and Exchange Board of India to address unresolved investor complaints within 180 days. Parliamentary Panel Reviews SEBI Ombudsman Powers Under Securities Markets Code Bill, 2025

Members have flagged concerns that, without clarity, the mechanism may become an additional appellate layer before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.

The review seeks to align the framework with legislative intent, strengthen investor protection, and ensure effective grievance redressal within India’s capital markets.

Read Details / 13 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Parliament Passes Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha Bill, Allowing 100% FDI In Insurance Sector

Parliament has passed the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Bill, 2025, bringing significant reforms to India’s insurance sector, including permitting 100% foreign direct investment in insurance companies.

The Bill amends the Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and the IRDAI Act, 1999.

It raises the FDI cap from 74% to 100%, lowers the net-owned fund requirement for foreign reinsurers, eases norms for transfer of shares, and removes the minimum paid-up capital requirement for insurance cooperative societies.

The amendments also enhance the regulatory powers of the IRDAI and provide for the creation of a Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund.

Read Details / 16 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Delhi High Court Seeks Union Bank’s Response on Fraud Tagging of Anil Ambani’s Son’s Company Account

The Delhi High Court asked Union Bank of India to clarify whether it issued a show cause notice or granted a hearing to Jai Anmol Ambani before declaring his company’s account as fraudulent.

The Court noted that borrowers must be heard before such classification and sought a short affidavit from the bank.

Ambani has challenged the fraud declaration as violating principles of natural justice, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling mandating prior notice.

The matter will be heard again on December 19.

Read Details / 19 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Government Set To Introduce Bill To Allow 100% FDI In Insurance Sector

The Union government is set to introduce a Bill in Parliament to increase FDI in the insurance sector from 74 per cent to 100 per cent, following approval by the Union Cabinet.

The proposed Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025 seeks to amend the Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.

The Bill aims to accelerate growth of the insurance sector, improve protection of policyholders, and support the goal of “Insurance for All by 2047.”

It retains the requirement that one key managerial position must be held by an Indian citizen and provides for the establishment of a Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund.

Read Details / 20 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Bombay High Court Criticizes PNB for Publishing Borrowers’ Directors’ Photos Amid Pending Challenge

The Bombay High Court pulled up Punjab National Bank for publishing the names and photographs of directors of a borrowing company in a newspaper despite being aware that their challenge to the bank’s actions was pending before the Court.

The matter arose after the directors questioned PNB’s decisions classifying the company as a “wilful defaulter” and its account as “fraudulent.”

The Court observed that publishing such material while an application for interim protection was pending was highly improper. PNB stated before the Court that it would not act further on the impugned classifications until further orders.

The matter is listed on January 19, 2026.

[Damara Gold Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.]

Read Order / 20 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Orissa High Court: Banks Cannot Penalise Borrowers for Switching Lenders or Prepaying Loans

The Orissa High Court held that banks cannot impose foreclosure or prepayment charges that restrict a borrower’s freedom to switch lenders or repay loans early.

The Court said such penalties violate binding RBI directions and undermine fair banking practices by discouraging mobility in the credit market. It was observed that contractual terms inconsistent with RBI rules stand nullified in law.

The Court also directed Indian Bank to return all original title deeds to the petitioner after finding no justification for withholding documents despite full repayment.

The Court said the bank’s conduct was arbitrary and contrary to borrowers’ rights.

[Maa Tarini Poultries Pvt Ltd v. Indian Bank & Ors]

29 days ago

MahiraBookmark

J&K&L High Court Holds Payment to ‘Either/Survivor’ Joint Account Holder Fully Discharges Bank’s Liability

The J&K&L High Court has held that when a joint account carries the “either or survivor” mandate, a bank is fully discharged of liability once it releases the matured amount to the surviving account holder.

Any dispute over entitlement lies between the survivor and the legal heirs and not the bank.

Justice Sanjay Dhar quashed criminal proceedings against HSBC and a co-accused, noting that RBI guidelines clearly permit such payments and that allegations against them were vague.

The Court added that civil succession disputes cannot be converted into criminal liability for banks acting under valid survivorship instructions, calling the complaint an abuse of process.

[Shabeena Ibrahim The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limit v. Mir Usman Disooki]

Read Details / a month ago

MananBookmark

Supreme Court Refers Issues On Cashless Treatment To Justice Sapre Committee

The Supreme Court has referred all issues concerning cashless medical treatment and complete insurance coverage for road accident victims to the Justice Sapre Committee (Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety).

A bench was dealing with intervention applications in the 2012 PIL of Dr. S Rajaseekaran, seeking a nationwide scheme under Section 162(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to mandate cashless treatment and timely reimbursement of post-discharge expenses.

The committee will examine implementation challenges, standardization of protocols, insurer compliance, and reimbursement mechanisms to ensure timely medical care for accident victims across India.

It has been directed to hear all stakeholders and submit its report within six weeks.

[S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.]

Read Order / a month ago

YashashviBookmark

Kerala High Court Clarifies DRAT’s Discretion on Pre-Deposit Under SARFAESI Act

The Kerala High Court has clarified that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) has the discretion to direct a pre-deposit of up to 50% of the debt due in appeals under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, depending on the subject matter.

It clarified that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), while determining the amount to be deposited, shall take into consideration the subject matter of the appeal.

The court emphasised that the tribunal must exercise this discretion judiciously, considering factors like the appellant's financial capacity and the merits of the case, rather than imposing the maximum deposit automatically.

[Glenny C.J. and Anr. v. Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and Anr.]

Read Judgement / a month ago

YashashviBookmark