Effectiveness of SARFAESI Act

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 4

ISSN: 2249-9962 April|2012 www.ijbmt.com Page | 1

Management of NPAs in Indian SCBs: Effectiveness of

SARFAESI Act, DRT & Lok Adalat during 2004-2011 Siraj. K.K, Research Scholar, School of Management Studies, CUSAT

Prof. (Dr). P. Sudarsanan Pillai, Research Guide, School of Management Studies, CUSAT

Abstract NPAs exhibit a virus effect on banks and affect liquidity, profitability and performance of banks. At macro

level, NPA affect stability of banking and leads to financial shocks in economy. The post-liberalization period

saw remarkable changes in Indian banking sector, deliberated to improve efficiency and to align Indian banking

with international standards. The research evaluates the management of NPA and explains the effectiveness of

various recovery management measures in Indian Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs), in particular DRT, Lok

Adalats and SARFAESI Act during 2003-04 to 2010-11.In addition to descriptive statistical tools, correlation

and regression study is undertaken to evaluate and explain relationship between incidence of NPA and its

recovery of NPAs. The empirical results showed improvement in recovery of NPA contributed mainly by

SARFAESI Act and DRTs during the period. It may be observed from the study that SARFAESI Act provided much needed momentum to recovery management.

Keywords: Non Performing Assets, Priority Sector, Non-Priority Sector, DRT, Lok Adalat, SARFAESI Act.

1. Introduction Banking sector reflect the growth of economy. The intermediation function of banks channelizes savings into

productive purpose in so doing promotes economic development. Thus, a stable and efficient banking system is

indispensable for supporting the development initiatives of the economy. Siraj, and Pillai (2011) noted that

development of banking sector and its stability is essential for the overall development of the economy. Banking

crises often led to financial crises and economic distress in many economies. Since the primary function of



banking involves lending, the element of credit risk pervades and requires proper attention to mitigate with.

Credit risk is inherent in banking and results in bank failures. If not managed properly, credit risk results in the

accumulation of bad loans, commonly called as Non Performing Assets (NPAs). Tracey and Leon (2011)

observed that the basis of sound credit risk management is the identification of the existing and potential risks

inherent in lending activities. The stability of banking sector is determined on the basis of its performance and quality of assets.

Non Performing Asset (NPA) refers to an asset that ceases to generate income for the bank or a credit facility

that does not meet its repayment obligations as agreed upon by the borrower and lender. In other words, NPA is

a credit facility in respect of which the interest and/ or installment of principal has remained overdue for a

specified period of time, i.e. for a period of 90 days (updated with effect from March 31, 2004). NPAs exhibit a

virus effect on banks and affect liquidity, profitability and performance of banks. At macro level, NPA affect

stability of banking and leads to financial shocks in economy.

NPA is considered as a major reason for bank failures (Estrella et al, 2000; Chijoriga MM, 2000; Ahmed et al,

2007). Santoni et al (2010) on bank failures in US explained that the “real” component resulting from exposure to a high loans/assets ratio, combined with a heavy accumulation of NPAs: 90% of the banks that failed in the

U.S. in 2009 had a high level of NPAs (over 4.7%). In India, NPA is regarded as one the most important cause

of many bank failures. Some banks exit to destiny (Ex: United Western Bank), while some other banks merged

(Ex. Lord Krishna Bank –reported ratio of NPA to total assets over five percent in 2002-03) with other banks,

since affected by high level of NPAs.

NPA is unavoidable in banking because of the basic nature of the business of banking. The inevitability of NPA

in asset portfolio of bank prompted policy makers to introduce various recovery measures in addition to

proactive measures to restrict NPAs growth in banking. Banking across the world integrated various recovery

management measures that suit their legal and economic environment. This research brief on NPA recovery

management practices and appraise whether the measures were efficient in bringing down NPA of SCBs in

India. Specifically, this research investigates role of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), Debt Recovery Tribunals and Lok Adalats in NPA

recovery management. Non Performing Assets may be further classified into NPA from priority sector, non

priority sector and public sector. Priority sector includes agriculture, small scale industries and other priority

sectors. Attempt is made here to evaluate the significance of relationship of these different sectors of NPA and

recovery of NPA.

2. Literature Review In Indian banking, the accumulation of NPA and its impact on profitability and asset quality received attention

during 1990’s. Financial Liberalization is considered as important requirement for financial sector growth.

Financial liberalization covers various dimensions of financial sector that as noted by Shehzada and Haan

(2008) includes measure relating to (i) credit controls and reserve requirements, (ii) interest rate controls, (iii)

entry barriers, (iv) state ownership in the banking sector, (v) capital account restrictions, (vi) prudential

regulation and supervision of the banking sector, and (vii) securities market policy. To revive Indian Banking and promote a viable and efficient banking in line with international standards, various measures were initiated

based on recommendations of Narasimham Committee (1991 and 1998) and Verma Committee. Chipalkatti and

Rishi (2006) noted that the banking reforms emerged from the recommendations proposed by the Narasimhan

Committee Report (1991) advocated a move to a more market oriented banking system, which would operate in

an environment of prudential regulation, transparent accounting, and stricter capital adequacy norms based on

the Basel Capital accord. Nandy, D (2010) remarked that the measure of NPA helps to assess the efficiency in

allocation of resources made by banks to productive sectors.

The importance of a sound banking system and the role of NPA to create distress in banking system is discussed

in many literatures. Jing-xin and Wei (2010) underlined that the large number of nonperforming assets in

financial institutions is an important reason for causation and deterioration of financial crisis. Dash and Kabra (2010) supported the view that NPA has resulted in bank failures and financial crises in both developing and

developed countries. Sharma et al (2001) noted that the magnitude of recovery amount overdue is one of the

most important indicators of financial health.

Ahmed (2010) stated that NPA restricts the bank’s lending capacity and stands in the way of dilution of funds to

developmental activities and hence the socio economic development of the area. Ranjan R and Dhal S (2003)

mentioned that among the various indicators of financial stability, bank’s nonperforming assets assume critical

importance since it reflects on the basis of asset quality, credit risk and efficiency in the allocation of resources

to productive sectors. Rose P and Hudgins S (2005) mentioned that since banks deal with less ownership funds



relative to the aggregative value of their assets, a relatively small percentage of bad loans push any bank to the

brink of failure. Batra, S (2003) on implication of NPA mentioned that one of the major implication of NPAs is

that it leads to the credit risk management assuming priority over other aspects of bank's functioning. The bank's

whole machinery would thus be pre-occupied with recovery procedures rather than concentrating on expanding

business. Perhaps, the most important consequence of NPA and reduction in asset quality is a reduction in bank lending (Heid and Kruger, 2011)

Research on NPA including Karunakar et al (2008) noted that apart from flaws in credit assessment of

borrowers due to political economy considerations, laxities in legal system, accounting disclosure practices,

recession and willful default results in accumulation of NPA. Indian banking has improved significantly and

regulatory authorities and banks initiated various measures to manage various causes of NPA. Caprio, G and

Klingebiel, D (1996) observed that the problem of NPAs arise either due to the bad management by banks or

due to the external factor like unanticipated shocks, business cycle and natural calamities. Still, many of the

reasons mentioned in previous researches still remains and includes Reddy, PK (2002) who noted that the

problem India faces is not lack of strict prudential norms but;

The legal impediments and time consuming nature of asset disposal process

Postponement of the problem in order to report higher earnings.

Manipulation by the debtors using political influence.

The reporting and NPA disclosure norms forced banks to strengthen their recovery management measures.

Management of NPA accounts hence plays a vital role in bank’s stability and growth. It highlights the quality of

loan assets, the liquidity and performance of bank. NPA indicate two major flaws in banking and economy. The

additions to NPA component indicate the strength of credit risk management to a great extent. Higher additions

to NPA thus indicate poor credit risk management of bank. The overhang component of NPA indicates the

strength of recovery management measures of the bank, which in turn is closely related with the effectiveness of

legal measures available for NPA recovery. Thus as pointed by Ahmed JU (2010), the prevalence of NPA can

be attributed largely to inherent flaws in business models of the lenders, mainly financial institutions and to some extent commercial banks. To manage NPA, it requires sound credit risk management measures supported

various legal measures. Much literature on trend and movement of NPA often briefed the significance of an

efficient legal system to manage NPA. Gopalakrishnan T.V (2005) summarized based on a review of

containment of NPA in international economies that NPA resolution in many countries focus on curative

measures and not necessarily only preventive.

The Indian banking sector in post-liberalization period witnessed considered progress on management of NPA

and incorporated prudential measures for income recognition, asset-classification, provisioning, etc. As rightly

pointed out by Chaudhary and Sharma (2011) major changes took place in the functioning of Banks in India

only after liberalization, globalization and privatization. Banking which were completely preoccupied to satisfy

the development priorities of government till 1991 showed signs of operational inefficiency. One of the notable

signs of operational inefficiency was the poor quality of assets and alarming level on NPA. This necessitated the implementation of various prudential norms to improve the banking sector, which was felt not only in Indian

banking sector, but banking sector across the world.

The prevalence of NPA cannot be completely eliminated by adopting prudential norms and effective risk

management practices. Ghosh, S (2005) pointed out that the quality of loan portfolio of financial institutions is

widely perceived to be directly dependent upon the financial health and profitability of the institutions’

borrowers, particularly the non-financial enterprise sector. Sharma, M (2005) observed that more essential step

to resolve NPA problem is timeliness of measures as it would save the system from a greater damage, obviating

serious macroeconomic costs. Various measures and recovery mechanisms were initiated in Indian banking

system in post-liberalization period. NPA cannot be eliminated in banking, but it can be controlled through

various proactive and reactive measures. The proactive measures includes effective risk assessment, credit evaluation and monitoring techniques while reactive measures includes various recovery measures that include

Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs), Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), Lok Adalats, SARFAESI Act etc.

Poongavanam, S (2010) noted that SAREAEST facilitated securitization of financial assets of bank and FIs or

power to take possession of securities and sell them. The SARFAESI Act 2002 allows banks and other financial

institutions to recover NPA accounts without the intervention of the Court. It provided three different methods

for recovery of non-performing assets, namely: -

Securitization,

Asset Reconstruction,

Enforcement of Security without the intervention of the Court

Thus it may be observed that SARFAESI helped to toughen the banking sector and allows them to securitize

recovery of NPAs. Unny, M.P (2010) based on a review on recovery management practices emphasized that



SARFAESI Act brought a greater change in the debt recovery scenario in India. The major change brought in by

SARFAESI is that it allowed the banks to take over possession from the defaulter, without going through the

stringent court procedure, once the loan account has been categorized as a Non-Performing Asset.Pereira, C

(2004) observed that the SARFAESI Act facilitated the establishment of ARCs.

Gomez, C (2008) considered Lok Adalat as ‘people’s court’. Pathak, B.V. (2008) observed that Lok Adalats

help in resolving disputes between the parties by conciliation, mediation, compromise or amicable settlement

and thereby reduce burden on courts. They were conferred ad judicial status and every award of Lok Adalat

shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and no appeal can be made to any court against the award made

by Lok Adalat. Despite being a popular method, banks find difficulty in bringing the parties together when Lok

Adalat meets.

Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT) is established by the Government of India under an Act of Parliament (Act 51

of 1993) for speedy settlement and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The tribunal is also

the appellate authority for appeals filed against the proceedings initiated by secured creditors under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. Padmanabhan Iyer, TKA (2005) observed that the ever-growing NPA, a fine euphemism coined to described the bad loans,

promoted passing of the Recoveries of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 whereby a

special Debt Recovery Tribunal was set up for the recovery of NPA. Ahmed, J.U (2008) based on a study on

NPA recovery management explained that among the various channels of recovery available to banks for

dealing with bad loans, the debt recovery tribunals and SARFAESI Act has been the most effective in terms of

the amount recovered.

3. Research Methodology In this study, efficiency of various recovery management measures is explained using a relative approach by

comparing it with various NPA indicators. The general rule accepted worldwide is that a recovery measure is

efficient if it enable recovery of more NPA in comparison to other measures. Also, a higher recovery as a

percentage to Gross NPA, Net NPA, Additions to NPA and Reductions to NPA may also be considered as

indication of efficiency of recovery management.

This research investigates the trend in management of NPA with specific focus on three measures, i.e.,

SARFAESI Act, Debt Recovery Tribunals and Lok Adalats. The study infers based on statistical information on

recovery of NPA accounts using the above three measures during the period 2003-04 to 2010-11. In addition to

the analysis of trend in recovery of NPA accounts, the study also focus on the relationship between various

recovery measures and sector wise NPA during the aforesaid period.

3.1 Research Questions The study addresses the following research questions.

1. Whether stated recovery measures significantly improved the recovery management during the study

period?

2. Do these recovery measures enabled recovery of Total NPA in significant terms?

3. Among the recovery measures selected, which measure yield more benefit for banks?

3.2 Variables Used The variables used to undertake the study includes NPA – Agriculture (XNPAA), NPA – Micro and Small

Enterprises (XNMSE), NPA – Other Priority Sectors (XNOPS), NPA – Public Sector (XNPSN), NPA – Priority Sector

(XNPS), NPA – Non Priority Sector (XNNPS), Gross NPA (XGNPA), Net NPA (XNPA), Additions to NPA (XANPA),

Reductions to NPA (XRNPA), Provisions towards NPA (XPNPA), Recovery of NPA using Lok Adalat (XRLA),

Recovery of NPA using DRT (XRDRT), and Recovery of NPA using SARFAESI Act (XRSAR).

3.3 Methodology To achieve the stated objectives, the research utilized descriptive statistics, average annual growth rate (AAG),

correlation and regression analysis.

4. Data Analysis 4.1 Descriptive Statistics – NPA Sector Wise (2003-04 to 2010-11) NPA emanate from various sectors, classified into priority sector, non-priority sector and public sector. Priority

sector includes agriculture, Micro and Small Enterprises and Other priority sector. Table No. 1 showed descriptive statistics highlighting the movement of NPA during 2004-04 to 2010-11. The

statistic on sector wise NPA showed equal importance of both priority and non-priority sector in total NPA of



SCBs in India. 51% of total NPA arise from non-priority sector during the period. It may be observed from the

standard deviation of descriptive statistic that non-priority sector showed a higher standard deviation indicating

a widely disbursed NPA trend during selected period. A comparison between priority sector and non-priority

sector NPA showed higher contribution of non-priority sector NPA (Average – Rs.33,292 crores, Total –

Rs.266,339 crores), compared to priority sector NPA (Average – Rs.30,517 crores, Total – Rs.244,137 crores) during the period. It refutes the earlier statements made by bankers that priority sector is the major contributor

for NPA. Also, it may be observed that the contribution of agriculture sector in total priority sector NPA

(Average – Rs.9,175 crores, Total – Rs.73,400 crores) is less compared to Small Scale sector (Average –

Rs.9,559 crores, Total –Rs.76,472 crores) and other priority sector NPA (Average – Rs.11,783 crores, Total –

Rs.94,265 crores).

4.2 Recovery of NPA through DRT, Lok Adalat and SARFAESI Act SARFAESI Act facilitated recovery of NPA accounts better than other modes of recovery, as may be observed

from the descriptive statistics. Bankers in India often complained about the legal impediments for recovery of

NPA accounts. This is addressed by enactment of SARFAESI Act. During the study period, an average of

Rs.4370 crores were recovered using SARFAESI Act, while DRT and Lok Adalat enabled recovery of Rs.3,301

crores and Rs.141 crores respectively. During the study period, SARFAESI Act enabled highest recovery of

NPA accounts, totaling Rs.34,960 crores, while recovery through DRT and Lok Adalat stands Rs.26,409 crores

and Rs.1,126 crores respectively.

Table No. 2 summarize the descriptive statistic on NPA recovery through SARFAESI Act, DRTs and Lok

Adalats. The statistics showed that SARFAESI Act provided a more efficient tool for recovery management in

Indian SCBs. Debt Recovery Tribunals stood second with a total recovery of Rs.26,409 crores during the period.

4.3 NPA (Sector wise) and Recovery (2003-04 to 2010-11) It may be observed from Table No. 3 that recovery of NPA account increased during study period indicated in

higher annual average growth (AAG) rate of amount recovered. While total NPA grew by an AAG rate of

7.43% during the study period, the recovery of NPA accounts increased by 13.26 (recovery through Lok

Adalat), 13.26 (Recovery through DRT) and 49.37 (Recovery through SARFAESI Act. Among the contributors

of NPA, agriculture sector reported higher AAG rate of 15.47, while small scale sector stand second reporting an AAG rate of 9.74.

4.4 Recovery as percentage of various NPA Indicators The recovery of NPA is compared with NPA figures during the study period. The NPA figures include Gross

NPA, Net NPA, Additions to NPA and Reductions to NPA. The below table calculates the average of recovery

as a percentage of various NPA indicators during 2003-04 to 2010-11, using the following equation

AvgR = Avg ([r1/NPA1×100] + [r2/NPA2×100] +……..)

Where;

AvgR = Average Recovery during the study period.

r1/NPA1×100 = Recovery as a percentage of NPA figure for period 1.

Table No. 4 showed the average of recovery as a percentage of NPA during the selected period. The average of

recovery as percentage of NPA figure indicates the need to further the recovery process. Only 6.38% of Gross

NPA is recovered through SARFAESI Act during the period, while the recovery of NPA using DRT is 3.95%.

Thus the study indicate that only 10.56% of Gross NPA is recovered using the above mentioned measures

during 2003-04 to 2010-11.

The recovery as percentage of net NPA is 15.34% using SARFAESI Act and 9.67% using DRT. It means that

around 25% of Net NPA is recovered through implementing the above mentioned recovery measures. The

recovery of NPA as percentage of total additions to NPA is 11.27% using SARFAESI Act and 7.35% using

DRT. The total recovery as a percentage of provisions towards NPA is 33.79% using SARFAESI Act, while it is

22.51% using DRT.

Even though remarkable progress in recovery particularly using SARFAESI Act and DRT may be observed, the

recovery as a percentage of total NPA (Gross NPA, Net NPA, Additions to NPA and Reductions to NPA)

should be enhanced through reducing the delays in existing recovery methods. Based on the analysis, it is

suggested to enhance the existing recovery methods by removing the bottlenecks in its implementation and to

further constitute more recovery measures.



4.5 Correlation Study A correlation study is undertaken to evaluate the relationship between the various NPA contributors and

recovery measures. The analysis in Table No. 5 revealed presence of strong positive correlation between

various NPA contributors and SARFAESI Act. Thus it shows that the total recovery increased using SARFAESI

Act increased with an increase in NPA. SARFAESI Act reduced many bottlenecks that existed in NPA recovery

in post-liberalization period.

Table No. 5 indicate that there exists positive and significant correlation between movements of total NPA in

agriculture sector and total recovery through SARFAESI Act (r =0.920, Sig = 0.001). The total priority sector

NPA and recovery through SARFAESI Act also showed positive and significant correlation (r = 0.900, Sig =

0.002). The correlation between NPA indicators and recovery using DRT and Lok Adalat is showed any significant relationship.

4.6 Regression Study A regression equation is formulated to study the relationship between different sectors of NPA and recovery

using SARFAESI Act. The other two recovery modes are not taken into consideration since it does not reveal

any significant correlation with different sectors of NPA.

The regression equation formulated for the study is;

(XRSAR)= -4314.425 +.469×(XNPS) - 3.705× (XNPSN) – 0.116×(XNNPS)

Table No. 6 show the correlation explained through R, R square, and adjusted R square. The R Square value

indicate that 91% of the variability in the dependent variable i.e., recovery using SARFAESI act can be

attributed to the changes in the independent variables. It shows the fact that the recovery of NPA using

SARFAESI Act moves in line with the movement of NPA.

Table No. 7 calculate the significance of regression equation. The F-test (F – 13.611, Sig = 0.14, i.e., Sig < 0.05)

indicate that the regression model provides reliable explanation for the behavior of dependent variables i.e.,

recovery using SARFAESI Act.

Table No. 8 indicate the significance of priority sector, public sector and non-priority sector on total recovery

using SARFAESI Act. The importance of public sector and non priority sector is not statistically significant

observed from the significance level 0.524 and 0.384 respectively. It may be observed from the above that only

priority sector NPA and recovery using SARFAESI Act greatly depend each other. The movement of other

variables are not significant as may be observed from the significance value greater than 0.05.

Since it may be observed that priority sector NPA is significant predictor to recovery of NPA through

SARFAESI Act, a revised regression equation is calculated.

(XRSAR) = -6603.995 + 0.360 × (XNPS)

The regression model confirms that the priority sector NPA and recovery using SARFAESI Act greatly depend each other.

5. Major Findings The descriptive statistics showed that non-priority sector contribute more NPA in total NPA of Indian SCBs in

the study period. This refutes earlier observation made by bankers regarding the significance of priority sector

on total NPA of banks. The post-liberalization period saw major reforms in banking sector that include relaxing

norms for priority sector lending. This might have resulted in more non-priority sector NPA in Indian SCBs.

Another major finding is the correlation between total priority sector NPA and recovery using SARFAESI Act.

It may be observed from the correlation study and regression study that priority sector NPA is an important

predictor to the movement of total recovery using SARFAESI Act. Among the various recovery modes,

recovery using SARFAESI Act contributed significant change in management of NPAs in Indian banking

sector. It is right to point out that SARFAESI Act contributed landmark change in NPA recovery management.

It may also be inferred that one of the significant reason for the slow pace of growth of NPA since 2003-04 is

the effectiveness of recovery measures, except for the fact that there has been an increased growth of NPA since

2007 due to global financial crisis and due to the recessionary pressures. Among the various recovery measures

SARFAESI Act provided much needed momentum and eased the legal hurdles to recover NPA accounts. It does

not lead to inference that recovery of NPA in absolute amount increased at a faster rate than incidence of NPA.

A comparison of the average of ratio of recovery as a percentage of various NPA indicators highlighted the need



to further enhance the recovery process. This suggestion is based on the observation that the recovery as a

percentage of Gross NPA, Net NPA etc is still average around 10% to 20%.

Among priority sector NPA, recovery using SARFAESI Act showed positive and significant correlation with

NPA- Agriculture (r =0.920, Sig = .001) and other priority sector NPA - excluding agriculture and Small Scale Sector (r = 0.744, Sig = 0.034). The correlation between total priority sector NPA and recovery using

SARFAESI Act is also positive and significant (r = 0.900, Sig = 0.002)

6. Conclusion The attempt made in this research to evaluate management of NPA in Indian SCBs focused mainly on the

recovery management measures since 2003-04. In specific terms, the study evaluated the trend in movement of

total NPA – sector wise and recovery of NPA accounts through Lok Adalats, DRTs and SARFAESI Act. It may

be observed from the growth rate of major recovery measures that it increased at a faster rate than NPA during

the study period. Among the recovery measures, SARFAESI act provided much needed momentum to improve

the recovery measures. This trend is good for Indian banking sector that require strong and stringent measures to

tackle the presence of NPA to maintain new standards, to grow and improve, to remain vibrant and viable in

Indian economy.

Siraj. K.K,

Research Scholar, School of Management Studies, CUSAT, Cochin

Prof. (Dr). P. Sudarsanan Pillai,

Research Guide, School of Management Studies, CUSAT, Cochin

References

Ahmad. Nor, H. & Ariff, M. (2007). Multi-country study of bank credit risk determinants, International Journal of Banking and

Finance: Vol. 5(1), pp.135-152.

Ahmed, J.U. (2008). Asset Quality and Non Performing Assets of Commercial Banks, 1st Edition, MD Publications Private Ltd, p. 156.

Ahmed, J.U. (2010), The Quality of Asset Portfolio and Loan Recovery of Commercial Banks: An Implication in Indian Context, AIUB

Journal of Business and Economics, Volume 9(2) pp.31-52.

Bandyopadhyay, T. (2006). Death of a Bank: The Complete Saga, Rediff Business [Online] URL:

http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/sep/16spec.htm

Batra, S (2003), Developing the Asian Markets for Non-Performing Assets - Developments in India, 3rd Forum on Asian Insolvency

Reform (FAIR), Seoul, Korea, November, 2003.

Caprio, G. & Klingebiel, D. (1996). Bank Insolvencies: Cross-Country Experience, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.

1620.

Chaudhary, M. and Sharma, M. (2011). Performance of Indian Public Sector Banks and Private Sector Banks: A Comparative Study ,

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 2 (3), pp.249-256.

Chijoriga, M.M. (2000). The Interrelationship Between Bank Failure and Political Interventions in Tanzania in the Pre-Liberalization

Period, African Journal of Finance and Management Vol.9(1) 2000: 14-30.

Chipalkatti, N. & Rishi, M. (2006). Do Indian Banks understate their bad loans?, Project Muse, Scholarly Journals Online, pp.75-91.

Dash, M.K. & Kabra, G. (2010). The Determinants of Non-Performing Assets in Indian Commercial Bank: An Econometric Study,

Middle Eastern Finance and Economics, Issue 7 (2010), pp 94-126.

Estrella, A., Park, S. & Peristiani, S. (2000). Capital Ratios as Predictors of Bank Failure, Economic Policy Review, Vol. 6(2)-2000.

Ghosh, S. (2005). Does leverage influence banks' non-performing loans? Evidence from India, Applied Economics Letters,

Vol.12(15), pp.913-918.

Gomez, C. (2008). Financial Markets Institutions and Financial Services, 1st Edition, Prentice Hall India publications, p. 309.

Gopalakrishnan, T.V. (2005). Management of Non Performing Advances, 1st Edition, Indian Institute of Banking and Finance, p.112.

Heid, F. & Kruger, U. (2011). Do Capital buffers mitigate volatility of bank lending? A simulation study”, Discussion Paper Series. 2,

Banking and Financial Studies No.3.

Jing-xin, C. & Wei, L. (2010). Study on Commercial Banks' Nonperforming Assets Securitization Selection Model, International

Conference of Information Science and Management Engineering (ISME), 2010, Xian, China, Aug 7-8,2010.

Karunakar, M.,Vasuki, K. & Saravanan, S. (2008). Are Non-Performing Assets Gloomy or Greedy in Indian Context, Research

Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.3, pp.4-12.

Nandy, D. (2010). Banking Sector Reforms in India and Performance Evaluation of Commercial Bank , Dissertation.com publications,

p.62.

Padmanabhan Iyer, T.K.A. (2005). Securitization in India, [In], Kuan, J.S. (2005), Special Report on Securitization in Asia and Pacific

Rim: 2005, World Trade Executive Publication.

Pathak, B.V. (2008). The Indian Financial System – Markets, Institutions and Services, 2nd Edition, Pearson Education Publications,

p. 585.

Pereira, C. (2004). Investing in NPAs – Will Investors Bite?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.39, No. 42, p.4602-4604.

RBI (2005), Prudential Norms On Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning & Other Related Matters. (Updated up to

June 30, 2004), RBI/2004-05/ 286 UBD.BSD.IP.MC.No.15 /12.05.05/2004-05, Reserve Bank of India.

Ramachandran, K.S. (2007). Economic Environment of India, First Edition, Northern Book Centre Publications.

Ranjan, R. & Dhal, S. (2003). Non Performing Loans and Terms of Credit of Public Sector Banks in India: An Empirical Assessment ,

Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers. Vol.24, No.3, Winter 2003.

Reddy, P.K. (2002). A Comparative Study of Non Performing Assets in India in the Global Context, Similarities, dissimilarities and

remedial measures, CYTL Paper Context, Indian Institute of Management.

Rose P & Hudgins S (2005), Bank Management and Financial Services, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill International Edition, pp .161.

http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/sep/16spec.htm



Santoni, A., Ricci, E. & Kelshiker, A. (2010). US Banks. Causes of Bank Failures in 2009 and Early Warning Indicators, Studi e Note

di Economia, Anno XV, 1-2010, pp - 161-176.

Sharma, K.C., Josh, P., Mishra, J.C., Kumar, S.,Amalorpavanathan, R. & Bhaskaran, R. (2001), Recovery Management in Rural

Credit, Department of Economic Analysis and Research Wing, NABARD.

Sharma, M. (2005). Studies in Money, Finance and Banking, 1st Edition, Atlantic Publication.

Shehzada, C.T. & Haan, J.D. (2008). Financial Liberalization and Banking Crises, University of Groningen, [Online], URL:

http://www.finance-innovation.org/risk09/work/6450490.pdf.

Siraj.K.K. & Pillai, P.S.P. (2011), Asset Quality and Profitability of Indian Scheduled Commercial Banks during Global Financial

Crisis, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Issue 80 (2011), pp.55-65.

Tracey, M. & Leon, H. (2011). The Impact of Non-performing Loans on Loan growth, IMF Working Paper 2011.

Unny, M.P. (2010). A Study on the Effectiveness of Remedies Available For Banks in a Debt Recovery Tribunal - A Case Study on

Ernakulam DRT, Working Paper Series, Centre for Public Policy Research, pp.1-35.

Varma, J.R., Raghunathan, V., Korwar, A. & Bhatt, M.C. (1992). Narasimham Committee Report- Some Further Ramifications and

Suggestions, Working Paper No.1009, Indian Institute of Management, February 1992,

Appendix

Tables Used in Report

Table No. 1: Descriptive Statistic – NPA Sector wise (2003-04 to 2010-11)

Amount in Rs. Crores

Agriculture Micro & Small Enterprise Others Priority Sector Public Sector Non-Priority Sector Total

Minimum 6,718 6,488 8,523 24,658 299 21,511 47,841

Maximum 16,660 15,990 14,559 47,209 685 46,873 94,513

Sum 73,400 76,472 94,265 244,137 3,818 266,339 514,291

Statistics

Mean 9,175 9,559 11,783 30,517 477 33,292 64,286

Median 7,709 8,337 12,417 27,465 493 31,956 58,498

Std Deviation 3,283 3,354 2,251 7,764 121 9,396 16,385

Standard Error 1,161 1,186 796 2,745 43 3,322 5,793

Kurtosis 4.588 0.626 -1.524 2.814 0.244 -1.424 0.157

Skewness 2.077 1.199 -0.420 1.788 0.139 0.310 1.041

Range 9,942 9,502 6,037 22,551 386 25,362 46,672

Table No. 2: Descriptive Statistics – Recovery of NPA Accounts

Amount in Crores

Lok Adalat DRT SARFAESI Act

Minimum 96 2,117 1,156

Maximum 223 4,710 11,561

Sum 1,126 26,409 34,960

Statistics

Median 131 3,241 3,866

Standard Deviation 43 783 3,103

Mean 141 3,301 4,370

Standard Error 15 277 1,097

Kurtosis 0.485 0.759 5.443

Skewness 1.013 0.449 2.102

Range 127 2,593 10,405

Table No. 3: NPA Sector-wise and Recovery (2003-04 to 2010-11)

NPA Indicators Growth Rate AAG

XNPAA 15.47

XNMSE 9.74

XNOPS 8.08

XNPS 9.46

XNPSN 1.01

XNNPS 7.01

XTNPA 7.43

XRLA 13.26

XRDRT 13.26

XRSAR 49.37

Table No. 4: Average (Recovery as a percentage of NPA) during 2003-04 to 2010-11

Mode of Recovery XGNPA XNPA XANPA XRNPA XPNPA

SARFEASI Act 6.38 15.34 11.27 12.58 33.79

Lok Adalat 0.23 0.57 0.46 0.45 1.42

Debt Recovery Tribunal 3.95 9.67 7.35 7.81 22.51

http://www.finance-innovation.org/risk09/work/6450490.pdf



Table No. 5: Significance of Correlation between the NPA (Sector wise) and Recovery of NPA

Lok Adalat DRT SARFAESI Act

NPA – Agriculture

Pearson Correlation .043 .175 .920(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .920 .679 .001

NPA – SSI

Pearson Correlation -.082 .054 .683

Sig. (2-tailed) .848 .899 .062

Others NPA

Pearson Correlation -.222 .372 .744(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) .597 .364 .034

Priority Sector NPA

Pearson Correlation -.082 .205 .900(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .848 .626 .002

Public Sector NPA

Pearson Correlation -.588 -.638 -.365

Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .089 .374

Non Priority Sector NPA

Pearson Correlation -.329 -.084 .563

Sig. (2-tailed) .426 .843 .146

Total NPA of all SCBs

Pearson Correlation -.232 .044 .747(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) .581 .917 .033

Table No. 6: Explained Relationship between the Dependent (XRSAR) and Independent Variables (XNPS), (XNPSN) and (XNNPS)

R 0.954

R Square 0.911

Adjusted R Square 0.844

Standard Error of the Estimate 1226.158

Table No. 7: Significance of Regression Equation

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 61389543.704 3 20463181.235 13.611 .014

Residual 6013850.296 4 1503462.574

Total 67403394.000 7

Table No. 8: Significance of Impact of NPA Sector wise on Recovery using SARFAESI Act

T Sig.

Priority Sector NPA 3.440 .026

Public Sector NPA -.698 .524

Non Priority Sector NPA -.978 .384

Table No. 9: Significance of Impact of Priority Sector NPA on Recovery using SARFAESI Act

t Sig.

Priority Sector NPA 5.051 .002

Figure No. 1: Recovery through SARFAESI Act as % of NPA indicators

Recovery through SARFAESI Act as % of NPA indicators

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year

Perc

en

tag

e

Gross NPA Net NPA Additions to NPA Reductions to NPA



Figure No. 2: Recovery through DRT as % of NPA indicators

Recovery through DRT as % of NPA indicators

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year

Perc

en

tag

e

Gross NPA Net NPA Additions to NPA Reductions to NPA

Effectiveness of SARFAESI Act

Documents

Transcript of Effectiveness of SARFAESI Act