Overdraft Accounts

Posted on by user

Introduction

An overdraft account is a ubiquitous banking facility: it permits a customer to withdraw funds beyond the available balance up to a sanctioned limit. In commercial practice in India overdrafts (OD) and cash‑credit (CC) facilities are essential working‑capital tools. But an overdraft is not merely a convenience — it is a continuing credit relationship governed by contract, bank‑law regulation and a body of procedural and substantive rules that determine recovery rights, security enforcement and criminal consequences (cheque dishonour). For litigators and in‑house counsel, mastery of how an OD is created, monitored, defaulted and enforced is indispensable to protecting client interests—whether acting for the lender or the borrower.

Core Legal Framework

Primary statutes and provisions that govern overdraft accounts in India:

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) and Section 139 (presumption as to negotiable instrument) are central where cheques are used in relation to overdraft accounts. Section 138 attracts criminal liability where a cheque issued for discharge of debt is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

  • Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) — Section 13 (notice for enforcement of security interest) is the key statutory route for secured lenders to take possession of and sell secured assets where the borrower defaults on an overdraft secured by charged assets.

  • Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) directions — the Banking Regulation Act governs banking business; RBI prudential norms and master directions (including those on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning — IRAC norms) determine when an overdraft/cash‑credit account is classified as non‑performing (e.g., the “out‑of‑order” test) and the provisioning requirements.

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — where an overdraft facility is extended to a corporate borrower and the account becomes an NPA leading to a default, financial creditors may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process under IBC (subject to IBC eligibility and procedural rules).

Practical Application and Nuances

How overdrafts operate in courtrooms and lender rooms — practical points and examples

  1. Creation and documentation
  2. The relationship is contractual. A comprehensive sanction letter/agreement should set out the sanctioned limit, rate(s) of interest (including penal rates), drawing power computations, security (hypothecation, mortgage, guarantees), conditions precedent, events of default, appropriation and set‑off clauses, and the bank’s power to recall the facility.
  3. For working‑capital OD the lender usually obtains: sanction letter, loan agreement, hypothecation agreement over receivables/stock, memoranda of deposit of title documents (if any), personal/corporate guarantees and charge registration (as applicable).

Practical tip: For lenders, a weak sanction letter is a recurrent cause of litigation. Ensure the loan agreement expressly records how drawing power is computed and the bank’s right to vary it periodically on objective criteria.

  1. Monitoring and proof of default
  2. Core evidence in recovery actions: sanction letter, account statements (downloaded and certified), stock/statements of inventory, bank reconciliation entries, letters/communications showing demand/default, signed guarantees, and notices under statutory routes (e.g., Section 13(2) SARFAESI).

  3. For OD/CC accounts, RBI IRAC norms create a practical benchmark: a CC/OD account is treated as “out of order” and can be classified as NPA if the outstanding remains continuously in excess of the sanctioned limit/drawing power for the prescribed period (as per prevailing RBI directions). Practitioners must ensure the bank’s chronology shows the account status, drawing power worked out and periodic review memos.

  4. Remedies available to lenders (and sequencing)

  5. Civil suit for recovery (money suit) — straightforward but time‑consuming; judgment and decree enforcement possible.
  6. SARFAESI Act (for secured lenders) — serve notice under Section 13(2) and, subject to statutory requirements, take possession and sell the secured assets without court process. SARFAESI, if applicable and validly invoked, is a fast enforcement route.
  7. Criminal remedy — Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: commonly invoked when the borrower issues cheques to discharge indebtedness and the cheque is dishonoured. A successful Section 138 prosecution may result in conviction and sentence, though criminal process is not a guaranteed route to full monetary recovery.
  8. IBC initiation — where the borrower is a corporate debtor and default conditions are met, financial creditors may initiate CIRP under the IBC. This is a strategic decision with consequences (moratorium, collective process).

Practical examples:
– Example 1 (secured OD): Bank sanctions OD of Rs. 5 crore against hypothecation of stock and personal guarantee. Borrower exceeds limit and stops servicing interest. Bank issues demand notices, classifies account NPA after the account is “out of order” per RBI norm, issues Section 13(2) notice under SARFAESI, and takes possession. Documents to rely on: sanction letter, stock statements, inspection reports, Section 13(2) notice, and valuations.
– Example 2 (cheque bounce): Borrower issues post‑dated cheque against OD instalment; cheque bounces. Bank issues statutory notice under Section 138 NI Act; if borrower fails to make good, bank files criminal complaint. Defence strategies can include: payment not for discharge of legally enforceable debt, reconciled accounts, or pre‑existing dispute—each must be proved on evidence.

  1. Evidence to establish misuse/default
  2. Bank must maintain contemporaneous records: ledger entries, system‑generated statements, signed acknowledgement of facility, correspondence calling upon repayment or advising of excess drawal, and minutes of review/inspection. Absence of such records impairs proving default in court.
  3. For Section 138: record of cheque issuance, proof of presentation and dishonour (bank memo), return memo, and statutory demand notice are essential.

Landmark Judgments

  • Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 — Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality and utility of the SARFAESI framework and clarified that statutory rights under SARFAESI could be exercised without court intervention by financial institutions on default. Practitioners must note the Court’s endorsement of the statute as a robust civil remedy for secured lenders.

  • K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 — while dealing with dishonour of cheques and criminality, the Supreme Court emphasized that a chequebook/journal alone is not enough; the prosecution must establish the existence of debt, dishonour and service of statutory notice under Section 138. The case is often cited for the evidentiary threshold in cheque‑dishonour prosecutions.

(Use these cases for principle; always check subsequent developments and constitutionality or procedural changes.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

For lenders (bank counsel / recovery counsel)
– Documentation: insist on a clean, well‑drafted sanction letter and enforce sign‑offs for periodic review. Sanction letter should authorize appropriation, set‑off, revision of drawing power and recite nature of security.
– Evidence trail: preserve account statements (system‑generated, timestamped), stock inspection reports, correspondence and minutes. In SARFAESI actions, strict compliance with statutory notice formalities (amount claimed, particulars of secured assets, time for payment) is crucial.
– Tactical sequencing: when secured, SARFAESI often yields faster recovery than filing a civil suit; criminal action under Section 138 can be pursued in parallel in appropriate cases (but do not treat criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil recovery).
– Avoidable missteps: permitting repeated breaches without contemporaneous demands weakens the lender’s ability to claim wilful default; inadequate notice or procedural lapses under SARFAESI will expose the bank to stay orders.

For borrowers (defence counsel / corporate counsel)
– Challenge computations: scrutinize drawing power computations, stock statements, and whether the bank credited supplier returns or honouring of receivables. Often “out of order” classification rests on incorrect or stale figures.
– Procedural safeguards: ensure the bank has complied with natural justice before taking adverse action—i.e., demand notices, reasons and opportunity to rectify where contractually mandated.
– Section 138 defences: demonstrate that the cheque was not issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt, or establish payment/adjustment, or lack of service of statutory notice. A technical but valid defence is to show that the cheque was post‑dated/issued subject to condition precedent not met.
– Strategic litigation choices: if a corporate borrower is faced with SARFAESI and possible IBC initiation, early negotiation or restructuring may preserve control and value better than protracted litigation.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– For banks: relying on informal communications rather than formal notices; failing to maintain contemporaneous evidence of drawing power and stock; invoking SARFAESI without verifying charge registration or priority of charge.
– For borrowers: delay in seeking interim relief only after assets are attached; failing to deploy available contractual remedies (e.g., request for review) before approaching courts; under‑estimating reputational and operational consequences of a Section 138 prosecution.

Practical drafting pointers (select clauses to check)
– Sanction Letter: precise credit limit, validity, drawal modalities, rate of interest (base + spread; penal rate), drawing power formula, periodic review clause.
– Appropriation & Set‑off clause: express bank authority to appropriate customer credits towards debts and to combine accounts.
– Event of Default: list events (overlimit, non‑payment, insolvency, material adverse change) with bank’s remedy.
– Security clause: clear identification of movable/immovable assets, power to create charge and register it, and statement authorizing enforcement under SARFAESI.

Conclusion

An overdraft account is a credit facility whose commercial simplicity belies complex legal consequences. For lenders, the safeguard is rigorous documentation, disciplined monitoring and strict adherence to statutory procedures (particularly when invoking SARFAESI). For borrowers, the defence arsenal lies in scrutinising account computations, demanding procedural compliance and exploiting evidentiary gaps in cheque‑dishonour prosecutions. In practice the choice among civil suit, SARFAESI enforcement, Section 138 complaint and IBC action is strategic — each remedy has different speed, remedy and collateral consequences. Mastery of documentation, timely preservation of evidence and clarity on statutory routes (Negotiable Instruments Act, SARFAESI, RBI IRAC norms and the IBC interplay) separates successful practitioners from the rest.