OTHER BLOGS LINK
YOU ARE VISITOR
Blog Archive
LIVE
Saturday, December 27, 2025
Wednesday, December 24, 2025
Monday, December 22, 2025
Customers should wait for investigation before filing case in Bank Transactions Dispute
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has dismissed a complaint filed against Kotak Mahindra Bank over alleged unauthorised credit card transactions, saying the case was premature as the matter was still under investigation.
The Commission, headed by President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, noted that the bank had not yet taken a final decision on the disputed transactions.
The complainant, Joginder Singh, said that while checking his credit card statement dated January 15, 2025, he noticed two transactions of ₹19,520.29 and ₹31,040.25, both dated December 23, 2024, which he claimed were unauthorised. He also stated that he did not receive any transaction alerts.
After contacting the bank’s customer care, the amounts were initially credited back to his account. However, later, ₹19,520.29 was withheld by the bank citing an ongoing investigation, while ₹31,040.25 was shown as unbilled outstanding, with the complainant being informed that he would have to pay the amount if the issue was not resolved.
Alleging poor service and unfair practices, and stating that repeated emails did not bring any final solution, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund, interest, compensation, and legal costs.
Kotak Mahindra Bank, its Nodal Officer, and the Reserve Bank of India did not appear before the Commission despite receiving notices and were proceeded against ex parte.
After examining the case, the Commission observed that the complainant himself admitted that the ₹19,520.29 transaction was still under investigation. For the second amount, the Commission referred to an email dated August 11, 2025, in which the bank stated that the refund depended on a response from the beneficiary bank.
Since neither transaction had been finally decided by the bank, the Commission held that the complaint was filed too early. It ruled that no findings could be given at this stage.
Bank of Maharashtra issues Strict Order: No Leave to Be Granted on December 26
In an email sent by Zonal Office, branch managers were informed that several key performance parameters are still pending and targets have not yet been met. To avoid disruption during the crucial year-end closing on December 31, 2025, all staff must remain available. The communication clearly states that:
- No leave should be approved for December 26, 2025.
- If any leave has already been sanctioned, it must be cancelled immediately and the concerned employee must be informed without delay.
- The instruction applies not only to branch staff but also to Branch Managers.
People on the social media platform X are criticizing the bank for not allowing leave. What do you think of this – let us know in the comment section below
Friday, December 19, 2025
Locker facilty start at ultadanga branch pnb
Tuesday, December 16, 2025
_Friendship Recession_ article in Harvard Business Review
Sunday, December 14, 2025
UIDAI New Aadhaar Card Redesign – Full details✨
Saturday, December 13, 2025
Thursday, December 11, 2025
If life certificate is not submitted by pensioner; before stopping his pension, _it is the duty of the bank to visit the house of pensioner and know the readon for not submitting
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Monday, December 8, 2025
Sunday, December 7, 2025
Sabbatical Leave Rules for Women Employees in Banks
The Government of India provides Sabbatical leave for women employees of Public Sector Banks to help them meet their special needs during their career. The Sabbatical Leave Scheme for women employees of the bank is provided to address their special problems during their careers. Women employees can request sabbatical leave for any purpose such as medical reasons, care of family members or children, higher studies, or visiting their spouse.
Who can apply for Sabbatical Leave?
The employee applying for sabbatical leave should have completed a minimum of 5 years of service. Sabbatical leave before completing 5 years of service will be granted only in exceptional cases and must be approved by the authority next above the competent authority as mentioned in the scheme. However, the following employees are not eligible for sabbatical leave:
If during the sabbatical leave there is a change in circumstances and the employee wants to withdraw or reduce the leave, this will be allowed only after completing a minimum period of 3 months of sabbatical leave, and a request must be submitted at least 15 days before resuming duty. During the sabbatical leave, the employee is not allowed to take up any other job, business, vocation, or profession.
Employees on sabbatical leave will not be allowed to take part in any promotion process during the leave period, even if they are otherwise eligible. The competent authority has full discretion to approve or reject the request for sabbatical leave based on the bank’s requirements, and the reasons for rejection must be recorded in writing. The decision on approval or rejection will be communicated in writing to the employee. If an employee is allowed to rejoin duty before the approved leave period ends, the leave already taken will still be treated only as sabbatical leave and will not be converted into any other type of leave
- employees serving abroad under special arrangements or bonds,
- employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed them,
- employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or who are under suspension,
- employees appointed on a contract basis, and
- any other category of employee as may be specified by the Board of Bank.
What is the duration of Sabbatical Leave?
The period of sabbatical leave shall be a maximum of 2 years during the entire career, and it must be taken for at least 3 months at a time. The leave cannot be taken more than once in a year.
Important Points of Sabbatical Leave
Only completed years of service will be counted to decide the minimum eligible service. A request for sabbatical leave will not take effect unless it is accepted in writing by the competent authority. The employee must apply for sabbatical leave at least 15 days before the intended start date. If the leave has already been sanctioned and the employee wants to withdraw it before starting, she must give at least 7 days’ notice.
Saturday, December 6, 2025
If Bank gives Home Loan, Can it be treated as Financial Creditor? Is Builder Liable to Pay?
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has given an important decision – if a Bank gives Home Loan, then can it be treated as a Financial Creditor or not?
The Court held that a bank giving loans to homebuyers cannot be treated as a financial creditor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a builder. This is because the loan was given to the homebuyers, not to the corporate debtor (builder). The Tribunal also noted that the builder had never agreed to repay the bank if the homebuyer failed to pay. Therefore, the bank’s claim does not qualify as a “claim” under Section 3(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The NCLAT examined the tripartite agreement and found that the builder had no responsibility to repay the loan. Its role was only to facilitate the transaction. The Tribunal said, “None of the clauses of the Tripartite Agreement cast any obligation on the corporate debtor to make repayment of the loan to the bank.”
Regarding the indemnity clause, the Tribunal clarified that “Clause 41 does not create any indemnity in favour of the bank. It only records the builder’s acceptance of the agreement terms.”
The Tribunal held that a financial debt must involve disbursal of money against consideration for the time value of money. In this case, the builder neither received the loan as a borrower nor took any financial responsibility. Therefore, the amount could not be treated as a financial debt.
Relying on the Axis Bank judgment, the Tribunal stated that banks giving home loans cannot be considered financial creditors of the builder. It observed that a tripartite agreement alone does not change the nature of the loan, which remains a loan between the bank and the homebuyer, not the builder.
Thursday, December 4, 2025
5 days banking ever or never
-
Changes in leave rules for bank employees and Bank officers were updated in terms of the 12th BPS/9th Joint Note dated 08.03.2024 This post ...
-
The Government of India has approved a new transfer policy for Public Sector Bank Employees. This new policy will be applicable from 1st Apr...
-
The December 2024 CPI [IW] was just announced. It is 143.7, down 0.8 points from the October or November 2024 figures. The exact DA slabs wi...







