EPFO to give 8.5% interest in 2020-21

The Central Board of Trustees of the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) recommended 8.50% annual rate of interest to its members for the current financial year 2020-21 for the seventh consecutive year.

The decision was taken by the board in a meeting held in Srinagar under the chairmanship of Union Minister of State for Labour Santosh Kumar Gangwar and the interest will be credited to the subscribers' account as soon as it is notified in the government gazette.

A labour ministry spokesman said the EPF Organisation has been consistently generating returns of not less than 8.5% since the financial year 2014. He said a high EPF interest rate, along with compounding, makes a significant difference to gains of the subscribers.

EPFO over the years has been able to distribute higher income to its members, through various economic cycles with minimal credit risk. Considering the high credit profile of the EPFO investment, the interest rate of EPFO is considerably higher than other comparable investment avenues available for subscribers, he added.

Bank of Baroda (BoB), the lead lender of Reliance Home Finance Limited representing 34 banks and institutions has dragged SP Group to Delhi High Court.

BoB alleges that SP Group has refused to join the resolution process and is stalling the resolution process and also not cooperating with other lenders.

BoB has filed an application before the Delhi High Court on March 3, 2021.

In its petition, Bank of Baroda said that in the hearing held on October 1, 2020, the applicant has made an offer that it is willing to secure the principal amount payable to the petitioner by investing a sum of Rs 200 crore in a fixed deposit receipt, which amount could be released in accordance with the final resolution plan.

"Yet the petitioner remained persistent in its unreasonable stance and refused to accept the offer," Bank of Baroda said.

"As a matter of law, in grant of interim order (or for continuing it), the Court ought to take into account the public interest and the likelihood of injury to the other stakeholders. It is submitted that if the restraint order is continued in the present case, the assets of Respondent No 1, will be dissipated, and its resolution process will be unfruitful and futile. Further, the petitioner has not been successful in commencing arbitration proceedings and it is unlikely that it will commence and conclude within reasonable future," the petition said.