借款人不能向银行索偿“海外存款”作为一项权利

Pallavi Gupta, Shivam Goel
{"title":"借款人不能向银行索偿“海外存款”作为一项权利","authors":"Pallavi Gupta, Shivam Goel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3565323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the law related to One Time Settlement \"OTS.\" The article discusses the law that OTS cannot be claimed as a matter of right from the bank. A court of law cannot direct OTS because that would mean the court is directing rescheduling of a loan. Where a creditor is enforcing its liability upon the debtor, the debtor has no legal right to claim that the claim be settled on favourable terms proposed by debtor whereby the claim of the creditor is reduced. This rule is discussed and analysed in light of cases: D.K. Gupta &amp; Anr V/s Oriental Bank of Commerce, 127 (2006) DLT 488; M.M. Accessories V/s U.P. Financial Corporation, 2002 (46) ALR 261; Haryana Steel &amp; Alloys Ltd. V/s IFCI Ltd. &amp; Anr, LPA No. 1947/ 2006.<br><br>The article clarifies the difference between OTS, which is governed by directions/ circulars issued by the RBI and out of court settlement which is governed by Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.","PeriodicalId":11689,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'OTS' Cannot Be Claimed as a Matter of Right by the Borrower From the Bank\",\"authors\":\"Pallavi Gupta, Shivam Goel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3565323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article analyses the law related to One Time Settlement \\\"OTS.\\\" The article discusses the law that OTS cannot be claimed as a matter of right from the bank. A court of law cannot direct OTS because that would mean the court is directing rescheduling of a loan. Where a creditor is enforcing its liability upon the debtor, the debtor has no legal right to claim that the claim be settled on favourable terms proposed by debtor whereby the claim of the creditor is reduced. This rule is discussed and analysed in light of cases: D.K. Gupta &amp; Anr V/s Oriental Bank of Commerce, 127 (2006) DLT 488; M.M. Accessories V/s U.P. Financial Corporation, 2002 (46) ALR 261; Haryana Steel &amp; Alloys Ltd. V/s IFCI Ltd. &amp; Anr, LPA No. 1947/ 2006.<br><br>The article clarifies the difference between OTS, which is governed by directions/ circulars issued by the RBI and out of court settlement which is governed by Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3565323\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Commercial Banks (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3565323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了“一次性结算”的相关法律问题。本文论述了境外储蓄权作为一项权利不可向银行索赔的法律问题。法院不能指示OTS,因为这意味着法院正在指示重新安排贷款。债权人向债务人强制履行债务的,债务人无权要求按照债务人提出的有利条件解决债权,减少债权人的债权。本文结合案例对这一规则进行了讨论和分析。东方商业银行,127 (2006)DLT 488;M.M. Accessories V/s up . Financial Corporation, 2002 (46) ALR 261;哈里亚纳邦钢铁公司合金有限公司IFCI有限公司注册会计师,LPA第1947/ 2006号。这篇文章澄清了OTS与庭外和解之间的区别,OTS受RBI发布的指示/通告的管辖,庭外和解受1908年民事诉讼法第89条的管辖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
'OTS' Cannot Be Claimed as a Matter of Right by the Borrower From the Bank
The article analyses the law related to One Time Settlement "OTS." The article discusses the law that OTS cannot be claimed as a matter of right from the bank. A court of law cannot direct OTS because that would mean the court is directing rescheduling of a loan. Where a creditor is enforcing its liability upon the debtor, the debtor has no legal right to claim that the claim be settled on favourable terms proposed by debtor whereby the claim of the creditor is reduced. This rule is discussed and analysed in light of cases: D.K. Gupta & Anr V/s Oriental Bank of Commerce, 127 (2006) DLT 488; M.M. Accessories V/s U.P. Financial Corporation, 2002 (46) ALR 261; Haryana Steel & Alloys Ltd. V/s IFCI Ltd. & Anr, LPA No. 1947/ 2006.

The article clarifies the difference between OTS, which is governed by directions/ circulars issued by the RBI and out of court settlement which is governed by Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Banks’ Interest Rate Setting and Transitions between Liquidity Surplus and Deficit ECB Monetary Policy and Bank Default Risk Bank Regulation and Market Discipline in the Presence of Risk-Shifting Incentives 'Negative-For-Long' Interest Rates and Customer Deposit Rate Anticipatory effects around proposed regulation: Evidence from Basel III
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1