• Petitioned Change in Sarfesi Act 2002

This petition was delivered to:

Finance Minister
Change in Sarfesi Act 2002

Remove Deposit of 25% of loan amount in DRAT court.

    2. Petition by


      Bangalore, India

People take a loan from the bank when they don't have money. Now a days, bank employees declare an acoount NPA illegaly on the false and frivolous grounds so that they can auction the property at a cheaper rate and make undertable money from the buyer. When the borrower lodges a complaint in the DRT court, the judge under the guidance of finance ministry has to give the judgement biased towards the bank and cause injustice to the borrower. Suppose the borrower wants to lodge a complaint against the bank in the DRAT court, he is required to pay a deposit of 25% which basically means that a person cannot get justice if he does not have money. Therefore we petition the government to change the law and make it subject to each case and ask the borrower to deposit only if the person is found guilty.

Recent signatures


    1. Reached 25 signatures


    Reasons for signing

      • over 1 year ago

      I endorse the argument for removal of 25% pre deposit at DRAT.

      The Sarfaesi act itself needs to be challenged on grounds that there is no forum for quick and inexpensive greivances redressal availaible to the borrower for verifying the correctness of NPA classification. If the borrower is not a defaulter in 1st place, why should he be subjected to long drawn and expensive legal battle against a mighty bank. End of the day, even if he wins after several years of litigation, he is still the looser.

      Under sarfaesi act, why not authorise the Banking Ombudsman to intervene to check correctness of NPA classification and also Lenders Liability under Fair Practises code (effrts made by bank for preventing slippage to NPA and after NPA - bring the account back to standard by way of debt restructure / nursing, etc). As per RBI guidelines of 2004, recovery action under Sarfaesi act should be resorted to as a last resort, only after all efforts for revival of account fail.

      The Sarfaesi act should be amended - the borrowere may approach Banking Ombudsman within 45 days of NPA cvlassification. Bank can invoke Sarfaesi act only upon dismissal of borrowers complaint. If the bank looses account should be upgraded and the borrower should be compensated for losses and the branch Manager should be penalised.

      This will go a long way in stemming corruption and misuse of powers under the draconian Sarfaesi act.

    • gulabchand jain GANDHIDHAM, INDIA
      • almost 2 years ago

      when goes npa bank & court know verywell

      • about 2 years ago

      laws like surfaci act 2002 create a bias in society making the weak even weaker. the officers of the bank are ready to take the credit if the account is functioning fine but when the times are tough the banks and its officers treat that account as a step child instead of helping the company they act as a deterrent . this approach defies the whole processes of nationalization of the banks. further it is worth mentioning here that the banks do not act with the same agility with big corporate accounts its only the small and medium scale companies that are acted on swiftly and sometimes even without a reason. the banks should be made accountable for their conduct and should be made to realize that RBI guidelines are to be followed and not ignored if a strong and stable growth environment is to be developed.

    • Payal Patel RAJKOT, INDIA
      • about 2 years ago

      I am also facing the same pinch

    • Ebony Pharma pharma BADDI DISTT SOLON (HP), INDIA
      • about 2 years ago

      If the borrower has money to pay 25% of the outstanding loan, he would not allow the account to become NPA as the banks are declaring the account NPA even with the default of only three instalments. fully agree with the petition


    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the Change.org API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.