RBI Slaps Penalty on Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited for Fair Practices and Ombudsman Norm Violations:

The RBI has imposed an Rs. 11.5 lakh penalty on Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services for violations related to foreclosure charges and internal ombudsman complaint handling norms.
Rs. 11.5 Lakh Penalty Imposed for Foreclosure Fee and Complaint Handling Breaches

RBI Slaps Penalty on Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited for Fair Practices and Ombudsman Norm Violations
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued a press release dated February 27, 2026, levying a penalty amounting to Rs. 11.50 lakh on Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, in use of its powers granted under Section 58G(1)(b) read with Section 58B(5)(aa) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
The said penalty has been imposed on the company for non-adherence with certain directions issued by the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) concerning the ‘Fair Practices Code’ and ‘Internal Ombudsman for Regulated Entities'.
On March 31, 2025, the Central Bank had conducted a statutory inspection of the company based on its financial position. During the inspection, the central bank found some instances where the company did not follow RBI’s rules. Subsequently, the RBI issued a show cause notice (SCN) addressed to the company, asking it to explain why a penalty should not be imposed on it for failure to comply with the said RBI's directions.
The company furnished a reply to the notice and oral submissions during the personal hearing. However, after reviewing the reply and the findings, the RBI still found the company liable for a monetary penalty for the violations it committed.
Here is a list of violations committed by the company:
1. Foreclosure Charges Issue
- The company charged revised foreclosure fees to some borrowers without properly including the revised condition in their loan agreements.
- Some customer complaints that were partly or fully rejected by the company’s Internal Grievance Redress Mechanism were not escalated to the Internal Ombudsman within the required time.
- In certain cases, the company did not communicate the final decision on complaints to customers within the prescribed time limit.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2420My Recent Articles
- Bona Fide Mistake in ITR Cannot Deny Section 10(10B) Exemption on BSNL VRS Compensation, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Grants Taxpayer a Final Opportunity to Explain Rs 2.27 Crore Cash Deposits Under Section 69APremium
- ITAT Restores Appeals for Fresh Consideration After NFAC Denied Request of Personal Hearing Through Video ConferencingPremium
- ITAT Condones 97-Day Delay, Restores Appeal After CIT(A) Sent Hearing Notices to Wrong Email AddressPremium
- MCA Appoints Justice (Retd.) Yogesh Khanna as Officiating Chairperson of NCLAT for Three Months
Up Next
Loading suggestions…










