Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune

RBI imposed a Rs 17.50 lakh penalty on Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Pune. The bank was found non-compliant with RBI directions on asset classification and charges on deposit accounts.

The bank must absorb the monetary penalty and address the compliance gaps identified by RBI. The penalty does not, by itself, restrict operations, but the issues flagged may invite further supervisory or enforcement action if not corrected.

• Section 47A(1)(c) read with Sections 46(4)(i) and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed a ₹13 lakh penalty on Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune for violating directions on interest rate on deposits. The lapse concerned non-payment of applicable interest on balances in certain deceased depositors’ current accounts.

The bank must absorb the penalty and ensure future compliance with RBI directions on interest payments for relevant deposit accounts. The action does not invalidate customer transactions, but it signals supervisory non-compliance and may affect depositor treatment and internal controls going forward.

• section 47 A (1) (c) read with sections 46 (4) (i) and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed a ₹30 lakh penalty on Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune for breaching supervisory directions. The lapses related to exposure to sensitive sectors and fraud classification/reporting.

The bank must bear the monetary penalty and the action serves as a regulatory warning for continued compliance with RBI supervisory directions. No direct operational ban is imposed by this order, but the bank remains expected to tighten controls over sectoral exposures and fraud reporting practices.

• section 47 A (1) (c) read with sections 46 (4) (i) and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed a Rs 1 crore penalty on Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune. The penalty was for breaches of IRAC norms, advances management, exposure norms, and related statutory restrictions.

Janata Sahakari Bank must absorb the monetary penalty and address the compliance gaps identified by RBI. The order does not by itself invalidate customer transactions, but it signals supervisory concerns over the bank’s regulatory controls, particularly around lending, exposure management, and IRAC compliance. The action has no direct operational restriction, but continued non-compliance could invite further regulatory scrutiny.

• Section 47A(1)(c)
• Section 46(4)(i)
• Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949