A CBI court in Lucknow has sentenced two people, including a former branch manager of State Bank of India (SBI), to five years in prison in a bank fraud case. The court has also imposed a total fine of ₹13 lakh.
The convicted persons are Ashok Kumar Dixit, former Branch Manager of SBI, Colonelganj Branch in Allahabad, and Govind Ram Tiwari, proprietor of M/s G.R. Associates, Allahabad.
According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the case was registered on May 31, 2005, based on source information against Ashok Kumar Dixit.
The investigation revealed that during 2003–2004, Dixit entered into a criminal conspiracy with Govind Ram Tiwari. They worked together to fraudulently sanction and disburse 36 housing loans
These loans were given using fake and false documents provided by Tiwari. The total loan amount was ₹1,69,45,000.
Due to this fraud, the bank suffered a loss of ₹1,81,85,500. The accused also gained wrongful benefits from the scam.
After completing the investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet on August 8, 2007, against the accused persons.
After the trial, the court found both accused guilty and sentenced them to five years of imprisonment along with a total fine of ₹13 lakh.
Bank of Baroda has issued an official clarification regarding a news report about the ban imposed by the Madhya Pradesh Government on the Bank.
The bank shared that the issue started on March 26, 2026, when one of its branches received an email requesting the transfer of funds from a savings account of the MP Government to another government account. However, there was a mismatch between the requested amount and the available balance in the account.
Later the same day, the branch received another email with a revised amount, but this request did not include any official letter.
On March 27, 2026, the branch received another email along with an official letter from the State Government department asking for the transfer. However, the branch was closed due to the Ram Navami holiday. After making the required arrangements and approvals, the bank completed the transfer on the same day in four different parts (tranches).
On the same day, the Commissioner of DIF, Bhopal, issued a letter temporarily stopping Bank of Baroda from handling government business.
According to the official order, the bank failed to follow government instructions related to the Chief Minister Kisan Yojana funds. An amount of about ₹1751 crore was supposed to be deposited under a specific government receipt head. However, the bank did not comply with these instructions. Due to this failure, the government said it suffered serious financial and administrative loss. Thus, the state government decided to stop Bank of Baroda from doing any government-related financial work for five years.
The bank quickly responded. On March 28, 2026, its zonal office submitted a written explanation to the concerned department. Later that same day, the Commissioner issued another letter cancelling the earlier order with immediate effect.
The bank clarified that since the restriction was removed within 24 hours, it did not disclose the matter to stock exchanges. It also confirmed that there was no financial or operational impact on the bank.
AIBOC has filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court against the new PLI scheme for banks introduced by the Government of India. The petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It challenges certain actions related to the Performance Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. According to the notice, the case will be listed for hearing on 30 March 2026 at 10:30 AM, or shortly after that, depending on the court’s schedule. The petitioners are being represented by a team of lawyers, including Rajiv Agarwal, Meghna De, L. Gangmei, and N. Bhushan.
The petition has been filed by AIBOC, AIBEA and NCBE. UFBU has 9 constituents – AIBEA, AIBOC, NCBE, AIBOA, BEFI, INBEF, INBOC, NOBW, NOBO. Out of 9, only three unions have filed the petition against the new PLI scheme.
Important Points of Writ Petition
The writ petition has been filed against the new PLI scheme dated 19.11.2024 in violation of Bipartite Settlement dated 08.03.2024.
The impugned PLI Scheme is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The matter is pending with CLC, still the Government has asked banks to credit PLI to senior executives.
A PLI agreement was signed in Bipartite Settlement for all officers – Scale I to Scale VII but the PLI has been modified unilaterally
During the signing of Bipartite Settlement, it was decided that the PLI scheme introduced under the 11th Bipartite Settlement and the 8th Joint Note dated 11.11.2020 will continue. But the Government ignored this settlement.
Petitioners have request court to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ of similar nature quashing the new PLI scheme till the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings and issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of similar nature directing Govt to maintain status quo and pass order in favour of petitioners
Expected DA Calculation Updated on 27.02.26 on the basis of CPI for the month of Jan'26 with the assumptions of CPI for Feb. & Mar'26. The CPI for the month of Jan'26 announced on 27.02.26 as 148.6 with an increase of 0.40 points from Dec'25. (as per revised base year 2016) (The base year was changed from Oct 2020)
Keeping in view of recent CPI announced , we may assume there would be an increase in CPI index by 0.50 points in the next both months. Accordingly, on this assumption, we may expect there would be an increase of 1.07% DA in terms of 12th BPS on revised pay. Total 26.07% DA will become payable from May'26.
On assumptions if there is an increase in CPI index by 0.40 points in the next both months, we may expect there would be be an increase of 0.97% DA in terms of 12th BPS on revised pay. Total 25.97 percentage of DA will become payable from May'26.
On assumptions if there is an increase in CPI index by 0.30 points in the next boths months, we may expect there would be be an increase of 0.87% DA in terms of 12th BPS on revised pay. Total 25.87 percentage of DA will become payable from May'26.
A special CBI Court in Mumbai on Tuesday convicted a retired bank manager and nine others in a 2004 home loan fraud case. The court gave prison sentences ranging from one year to five years.
Brothers Kashinath Jadhav and Ganesh Pandurang Jadhav were the main accused in the case. The court sentenced them to five years in jail. Former bank official Metha Sastry was given one year of imprisonment under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sastry was a senior manager at the Central Bank of India branch in Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The court said he failed to carry out required checks before and after sanctioning the loans. If these checks had been done, the fraud could have been detected earlier.
Another bank official, Narain Mathur, who was a chief manager, died during the 20-year trial. So, the charges against him were closed.
According to the prosecution, the accused used 17 fake sale agreements to apply for housing loans. They claimed that they were buying flats from Shreeram Sthapatya Construction in Spring Field Apartment in Vasai. However, in reality, no flats were purchased.
The Jadhav brothers also opened fake bank accounts in the name of the construction company at Punjab National Bank.
After the loans were approved by the Central Bank of India, the cheque payments were wrongly deposited into these fake accounts instead of going to the real builder. The money was then quickly withdrawn.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said that bank officials did not properly verify the loan applicants, the purpose of the loan, or the documents. Loans worth ₹67.70 lakh were given, out of which ₹48.63 lakh remained unpaid
The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against a metal company in a ₹61.13 crore bank fraud case. The company allegedly failed to repay loans taken from a group of banks led by Union Bank of India. It is also accused of using the loan money for purposes that were not approved.
The company, Laxmiroop Pvt Ltd, is based in Chhattisgarh. Its transactions with the banks between 2023 and 2025 are now under investigation. The group of banks also includes Federal Bank.
Due to non-payment of loans, the company’s account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on February 26, 2025, by Union Bank of India. Later, Federal Bank reported the account as “fraud” to the Reserve Bank of India on June 16, 2025. Union Bank of India also reported it as fraud on September 23, 2025.
The FIR in this case was registered by the Mumbai unit of the Central Bureau of Investigation on February 13. It was based on a complaint filed by a Deputy General Manager of Union Bank of India. The case has been registered under sections related to criminal conspiracy, cheating, and misconduct under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
MD&EDs will be paid Rs.1,00,67,530.31 as PLI. The PLI Amount that will be paid to MD&EDs is as follows:
S. No.
Name of the WTD
Designation
PLI Amount (₹)
1
Shri Atul Kumar Goel
Former MD & CEO
16,15,680.00
2
Shri Ashok Chandra
MD & CEO
4,51,695.48
3
Shri Kalyan Kumar
Former ED
19,53,600.00
4
Shri Binod Kumar
Former ED
16,99,509.67
5
Shri M. Paramasivam
ED
21,50,400.00
6
Shri Bibhu Prasad Mahapatra
ED
21,50,400.00
7
Shri D Surendran
ED
46,245.16
The Government has ordered Punjab National Bank to pay PLI to officers from Scale IV to Scale VIII as per the revised PLI guidelines issued by DFS, Ministry of Finance.
SBI
The PLI Amount that will be paid to MD&EDs is as follows:
S. No.
Name of the WTD
Designation
PLI Amount (₹)
1
Shri Dinesh Khara
Former Chairman
10,95,968.00
2
Shri C S Setty
Chairman
16,04,032.00
3
Shri C S Setty
Former MD
10,93,045.00
4
Shri Ashwini Kumar Tiwari
MD
26,92,800.00
5
Shri Vinay M. Tonse
Former MD
26,73,300.00
6
Shri Alok Kumar Choudhary
Former MD
6,73,200.00
7
Shri Rana Ashutosh Kumar Singh
MD
17,51,768.00
8
Shri Rama Mohan Rao Amara
MD
7,74,542.00
BOB
The PLI Amount that will be paid to MD&EDs is as follows:
S. No.
Name of the WTD
Designation
PLI amount to be paid
1
Shri Debadatta Chand
MD & CEO
16,15,680.00
2
Shri Lalit Tyagi
ED
16,12,800.00
3
Shri Sanjay Vinayak Mudaliar
ED
16,12,800.00
4
Shri Lal Singh
ED
16,12,800.00
5
Smt Beena Vaheed
ED
10,40,516.40
INDIAN BANK
The PLI Amount that will be paid to MD&EDs is as follows:
A big controversy has unfolded in the public sector banks in India. Yesterday, the Government of India sent letters to the banks to credit PLI to Scale IV and above officers. This new PLI scheme was introduced by the Government in 2024 and aims to provide Performance-Linked Incentive (PLI) to Scale IV and above officers.
But this scheme has been in controversy since its launch. Why? Let’s understand. This PLI scheme divides bank officers in two sections – Scale I to Scale III and Scale IV and above. Scale I to Scale III will get PLI of up to 15 days of the basic salary, whereas Scale IV will get PLI upto 70% of their annual basic pay. Scale V and VI officers can get 80% of their annual basic pay. Scale VII officers can get 90% of their annual basic pay. EDs and MDs can get PLI up to 100% of their annual basic pay.
The United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU) has strictly opposed this PLI scheme. The matter reached the Office of Labour Commissioner. UFBU said that PLI should be paid proportionately to all Officers starting from Scale I. The latest meeting was held on 9th March 2026 between UFBU and the government representatives and it was decided to discuss further on this matter.
The unions warned that if the payment for officers from Scale IV and above is made under the new scheme, it could lead to significant cost escalation for banks, which may affect the banks’ profits and create other related issues.
The Chief Labour Commissioner (CLC) ordered IBA to provide details of the financial impact on Banks due to new PLI scheme. The CLC said that a letter would be written to DFS to pay PLI to Scale IV and above as per the old scheme. But yesterday, Govt ordered all Banks to credit PLI for Scale IV and above officers.
This has raised a lot of questions?
If the matter was under discussion, then how can Govt order Banks to credit PLI for Scale IV and above?
In the meeting, the DFS said clearly that PLI to Scale IV and above will be paid as per the new norms. Bank Unions did not mention any strict action against DFS if PLI is paid.
Earlier, the banks had credited the PLI for Scale I to Scale III, but Unions did not strongly object to this, and the matter has been pending at CLC for approximately a year. Had Unions taken strong action, the matter could have been resolved by now.
Why has the matter been under discussion for the last 1 year? This matter should have been resolved by now. Why did Bank Unions not try to resolve the matter at the earliest?
It seems Bank Unions are hiding something and Bank Officers are not happy with this. Bank Officers are severely criticizing Bank Unions on Social Media for not being able to resolve the issue of PLI.
Canara Bank has loan default of Rs 2.49 lakh crore, according to data compiled by TransUnion CIBIL and examined by The Pioneer. Large defaults of 11 PSU banks exceed INR 29 lakh crore excluding Indian Bank as the bank has not yet submitted list of Large Defaulters for the past one year. Canara Bank has filed 14,277 suits across the country to recover these loans.
Company / Group
Loan Default Amount (₹ Crore)
Aircel (C. Sivasankaran)
4,508
Shri Lakshmi Cotsyn
3,982
Lanco Group
3,852
Gammon Engineers
3,425
MS Gupta Power Infrastructure
3,303
IL&FS Group Companies
3,237
Nicco Corporation
2,815
Indure Pvt Ltd
2,770
Winsome Diamonds & Jewellery
2,550
PSL Limited
2,373
Gayatri Projects
2,342
Rajesh Exports
2,285
Supreme Housing & Hospitality
2,254
Rabirun Vinimay Pvt Ltd
2,024
Jet Airways
1,972
Alok Industries
1,746
Jay Polychem
1,714
Concast Steel & Power
1,695
Anil Ambani Group Companies
1,574
Era Group
1,544
Jindal Steel & Power (guarantor case)
1,487
Bhushan Power & Steel
1,229
PEC India
1,227
DHFL (Dewan Housing Finance Corporation)
1,250
Forever Precious Jewellery & Diamonds
1,364
Unitech Ltd
937
Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd
937
Gitanjali Group (Mehul Choksi, Nirav Modi)
919
Mahendra Exports
858
IVRCL
790
BBT Elev RD
747
Bibcol
732
Gili India
700
Transstroy India Pvt Ltd
653
Among the borrowers are several high-profile corporate groups. Companies linked to debt-ridden industrialist Anil Ambani owe INR 1,574 crore to the bank. In one case, Jindal Steel and Power, headed by Naveen Jindal, is listed as personal guarantor for dues of INR 1,487 crore related to Reliance Communications. Insolvent Bhushan Power and Steel owes INR 1,229 crore, while PEC India owes INR 1,227 crore. The defunct Jet Airways owes INR 1,972 crore, with the bank listing a company staff as personal guarantor instead of promoter Naresh Goyal. The largest defaulter is fugitive businessman C Sivasankaran’s telecom firm Aircel, which owes INR 4,508 crore
The Seychelles-based promoter of Aircel and Dishnet Wireless owes banks more than INR 20,000 crore. According to the data, one of his company directors, Sudhir Mathur, is listed as personal guarantor to Canara Bank.
Other major defaulters include Shri Lakshmi Cotsyn (INR 3,982 crore), the Lanco Group of former Congress MP L Rajagopal (INR 3,852 crore), Gammon Engineers (INR 3,425 crore), Odisha-based MS Gupta Power Infrastructure (INR 3,303 crore) and companies linked to IL&FS (INR 3,237 crore).
The data shows that in most of these cases the bank has no recoverable collateral apart from personal guarantees. Many loans were sanctioned against company shares whose valuations were later found to be inflated, while several of the companies have since entered insolvency or liquidation.
The records also indicate that several large loans were structured as multiple smaller loans. One example cited is Kolkata-based Nicco Corporation, which is now undergoing insolvency proceedings. The company received 168 separate loans of INR 16.75 crore each from the same Canara Bank branch, amounting to INR 2,815 crore in total.
Other large defaulters include Delhi-based Indure Pvt Ltd (INR 2,770 crore), Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery (INR 2,550 crore), Bengaluru-based Rajesh Exports (INR 2,285 crore), PSL Limited (INR 2,373 crore), Hyderabad-based Gayatri Projects (INR 2,342 crore) and Supreme Housing and Hospitality (INR 2,254 crore). Kolkata-based Rabirun Vinimay Pvt Ltd owes INR 2,024 crore; through the insolvency process, Jindal Steel acquired the company for INR 96 crore, leaving the bank to pursue civil recovery for the remaining dues.
Other borrowers include Concast Steel & Power (INR 1,695 crore), Jay Polychem (INR 1,714 crore), Forever Precious Jewellery and Diamonds (INR 1,364 crore), and DHFL, whose promoters Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan face dues exceeding INR 50,000 crore across banks and owe INR 1,250 crore to Canara Bank.
Fugitives Mehul Choksi and Nirav Modi, accused of defrauding Punjab National Bank of over INR 25,000 crore, also borrowed INR 919 crore from Canara Bank. Real estate firm Unitech Ltd owes INR 937 crore, while Trimax IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd has dues of INR 937 crore.
Other defaulters include Mahendra Exports (INR 858 crore), Kolkata-based BBT Elev RD (INR 747 crore), Bibcol (INR 732 crore), Mumbai-based jewellery company Gili India (INR 700 crore), Hyderabad-based IVRCL (INR 790 crore) and Transstroy India Pvt Ltd (INR 653 crore).
“First They Agreed, Now They Protest — What a Hypocrisy!”
The double standards of UFBU and its constituent unions now stand completely exposed.
When PLI (Performance Linked Incentive) was introduced in banks, these very unions agreed, signed settlements, and compromised employee unity.
Today, when the harmful consequences of PLI are visible — discrimination, inequality, and division among employees — the same unions are shedding crocodile tears and pretending to oppose it.
👉 The real questions are:
Is this protest genuine or just damage control?
Why were they silent when decisions were being made?
Why mislead the workforce now?
The truth is: PLI has weakened collective strength and created inequality in the banking sector.
And those responsible are the very unions now claiming to fight against it.
✊ Time to wake up
✊ Time to demand accountability
“Those who agreed yesterday cannot pretend to resist today.”
