Bank of Baroda has written off loans worth Rs 35,715 crore involving borrowers with outstanding dues of Rs 100 crore and above over a six-year period between FY20-21 to FY25-26.
The state-owned bank’s recovery from such accounts during this period was Rs 9,946 crore, or less than 28%, according to the lender’s response to an Right to Information (RTI) application.
The lender also reported Rs 7,817 crore as the amount written off while settling large loan accounts after accepting haircuts.
Bank of Baroda, however, declined to disclose the names of the large borrowers, citing exemptions under the RTI Act.
The figures, provided in an RTI reply dated 30 July, were in response to an application filed by Pune-based activist Vivek Velankar on 21 June.
The bank provided year-wise data on technical write-offs involving loan accounts of Rs 100 crore and above, Money Life reported.
The largest write-offs were reported in FY20-21 and FY21-22, when Rs 11,916 crore and Rs 11,261 crore were technically written off, respectively. This was followed by a write-off of Rs 8,733 crore in FY23, of Rs 2,055 crore in FY24 and Rs 1,750 crore in FY25. The bank reported no such write-off for FY26, according to the RTI response.
A technical write-off means the amounts have been written off from the bank’s books for accounting purposes. But it does not by itself mean that the bank has stopped pursuing recovery.
The RTI application also sought details of large loan accounts settled through the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or other forums after accepting a haircut, Money Life reported.
The highest haircut amount of Rs 3,132 crore was reported in FY22, followed by Rs 2,331 crore in FY21 and Rs 1,831 crore in FY23. InFY24, this fell to Rs 155 crore but subsequently rose to Rs 368 crore in FY25. No amount was reported for FY26.
While Velankar had sought the names of borrowers whose loans above Rs 100 crore were technically written off during this period along with the amount written off, the bank declined the request. It said the information was personal in nature and related to third-party information and that disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.