| |
| LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR |
| |
|
SBI’s audited accounts
This has reference to the news report that the Reserve Bank proposes
to dispose of its holding in State Bank of India to the government.
The regulator should not have a dual responsibility of ownership and
regulation. The government proposes to amend the State Bank of India
Act to enable the bank to have greater access to capital from both
the domestic as well as the international markets.
While nomination facility is available to depositors, the State Bank’s
Registrar and Transfer Agent states that the SBI Act does not provide
for nomination facility. This should be made available to SBI shareholders
as is available to shareholders in public limited companies under
Companies Act. Presently the Directors’ report to shareholders and
annual audited accounts of the Bank are merely “received” by the shareholders
at the annual general meeting and not “adopted” by shareholders at
the general meeting which is a normal practice for limited companies
under the Companies Act. It is essential that shareholder approval
is sought for the annual audited accounts. Indeed it is a measure
of the confidence of members in the management and promotes functioning
of corporate democracy.
-- K B Dabke, Mumbai
Good amendment
In order to provide relief to genuine borrowers, at the insistence
of the Supreme Court of India, the central government has already
amended the Debt Recovery Act. The said borrowers can now raise their
counterclaims against the lending bank if there is any wrongdoing
such as breach of statutory duties as laid down in Reserve Bank guidelines
or breach of duty of care, negligence, malicious civil proceedings
etc.
In fact a small scale industrial unit with bank borrowings of Rs 17
lakh had already filed a counter-damage-suit of Rs 29 crore against
a nationalised bank based on the law of torts and the law of damages
and compensation. On account of such well-defined legal provisions,
bank borrowers need not be afraid of the Debt Recovery Tribunal anymore.
-- Ram Kishan, on e-mail
Strange clause
Recently, various banking service recruitment boards came out with
advertisements for specialists officers such as computer professionals,
MBAs, CAs etc. in their participating banks. The eligibility qualifications
for these posts were M.Tech, MBA, CA, ICWA etc, besides post qualification
experience which depended upon the posts applied for. In terms of
the guidelines mentioned in these advertisements, the Other Backward
Caste certificate — particularly in respect of creamy layer clause
— is required to be within twelve months old from the date of release
of the advertisement.
This condition is impossible to fulfill in view of the qualification
and experience mentioned in the advertisements. A candidate, after
acquiring professional qualifications, will doubtless get a minimum
salary of Rs 1000 per month and it is impossible for him/her to get
an OBC certificate after he/she has 5-7 years of experience. Further,
the above condition is not imposed by UPSC and other government organisations
wherein the certificate issued by the competent authorities is acceptable
irrespective of the date of issue. In view of the above, it is requested
that the respective authorities look into the matter and amend the
above condition.
-- C P Vichitra, Uttar Pradesh |
| |
| |
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
© 2001: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All
rights reserved throughout the world.
|
