Contribution to disaster relief is now an eligible CSR activity

Munmi Phukon, Principal Manager
Vinod Kothari & Company
munmi@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on 30th May, 2019 issued a Notification amending Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) which seeks to include disaster management, including relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities under CSR activities. The amendment is very crucial considering the recent history of natural disaster the country had witnessed and this was always an expectation of the corporate sector from the Government.

Provisions of law

The Act through Section 135 puts a social obligation on certain class of companies on the basis their turnover and net profits to spend 2% of the average net profits of past 3 years in the activities mentioned in the Schedule. However, the contribution to any disaster management/ relief activities was not specifically covered in the Schedule except for Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. This was an insufficiency of law due to which the companies were, in a way, forced to restrict themselves to the PM’s Fund despite of their wish to contribute in other funds or to decline the benefit which the society deserves in such circumstances.

The two- fold benefit

Seemingly, the amendment has come out with a relief to the corporates as well as to the society at large. Therefore, the benefit is said to be a two- fold benefit which, in one hand, will ensure welfare of the society and the environment in need and in the other, it will help the corporates deployment of the minimum allocated CSR fund in needy areas in a more effective way.

NBFCs in troubled waters as Madras Court Bench rules in favour of RBI

The latest judgement by the Madras HC as on 22nd April, 2019 has set aside an earlier single judge order in January this year, and ruled in favour of RBI. RBI argued that there was an appeal remedy available and the companies instead of filing writ petitions with the court could have approached the appellate authority.

However before citing the details of the present judgement, this writer believes a firm background is required to grasp the gravity of the present situation. The reader may feel free to scroll further down, if acquainted with the January single-judge decision beforehand.

Background

Since the Sarada scam in 2015, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had been on high alert and had been subsequently tightening regulations for NBFCs, micro-finance firms and such other companies which provide informal banking services. As of December 2015, over 56 NBFC licenses were cancelled[1]. However, recently in light of the uncertain credit environment (recall DHFL and IF&LS) among other reasons, RBI has cancelled around 400 licenses [2]in 2018 primarily due to a shortfall in Net Owned Funds (NOF)[3] among other reasons. The joint entry of the Central Govt. regulators and RBI to calm the volatility in the markets on September 21st, 2018 after an intra-day fall of over 1000 points amid default concerns of DHFL, warranted concern. Had it been two isolated incidents the regulators and Union government would have been unlikely to step in. The RBI & SEBI issued a joint statement on September saying they were prepared to step in if market volatility demanded such a situation. This suggests a situation which is more than what meets the eye.

Coming back to NBFCs, over half of the cancelled NBFC licenses in 2018 could be attributed to shortfall in NOFs. NOF is described in Section 45 IA of the RBI Act, 1934. It defines NOF as:

1) “Net owned fund” means–
(a) The aggregate of the paid-up equity capital and free reserves as disclosed in the latest
Balance sheet of the company after deducting therefrom–
(i) Accumulated balance of loss;
(ii) Deferred revenue expenditure; and

(iii) Other intangible assets; and
(b) Further reduced by the amounts representing–
(1) Investments of such company in shares of–
(i) Its subsidiaries;
(ii) Companies in the same group;
(iii) All other non-banking financial companies; and
(2) The book value of debentures, bonds, outstanding loans and advances
(including hire-purchase and lease finance) made to, and deposits with,–
(i) Subsidiaries of such company; and
(ii) Companies in the same group, to the extent such amount exceeds ten per cent of (a) above.

At present, the threshold amount that has to be maintained is stipulated at 2 crore, from the previous minimum of 25 lakhs. Previously, to meet this requirement of Rs. 25 lakh a time period of three years was given. During this tenure, NBFCs were allowed to carry on business irrespective of them not meeting business conditions. Moreover, this period could be extended by a further 3 years, which should not exceed 6 years in aggregate. However, this can only be done after stating the reason in writing and this extension is in complete discretion of the RBI. The failure to maintain this threshold amount within the stipulated time had led to this spurge of license cancellations in 2018.

However, the Madras High Court judgement dated 29-1-2019 came as a big relief to over 2000 NBFCs whose license had been cancelled due a delay in fulfilling the shortfall.

 

THE JUDGEMENT

The regulations

On 27-3-2015 the RBI by notification No. DNBR.007/CGM(CDS)-2015 specified two hundred lakhs rupees as the NOF required for an NBFC to commence or carry on the business. It further stated that an NBFC holding a CoR and having less than two hundred lakh rupees may continue to carry on the business, if such a company achieves the NOF of one hundred lakh rupees before 1-04-2016 and two hundred lakhs of rupees before 1-04-2017.

The Petitioner’s claim

The petition was filed by 4 NBFCs namely Nahar Finance & Leasing Ltd., Lodha Finance India Ltd., Valluvar Development Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Senthil Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the cancellation of Certificate of Registration (CoR) against the RBI. The petitioners claim that they had been complying with all the statutory regulations and regularly filing various returns and furnishing the required information to the Registrar of Companies. These petitions were in response to the RBI issued Show Cause Notices to the petitioners proposing to cancel the CoR and initiate penal action. The said SCNs were responded to by the petitioners contending that they had NOF of Rs.104.50 lakhs, Rs.34.19 lakhs, Rs.79.50 lakhs and Rs.135 lakhs respectively, as on 31.03.2017.

Valluvar Development Finance also sent a reply stating that they had achieved the required NOF on 23-10-2017, attaching a certificate from the Statutory Auditor to support its claim. The other petitioners however submitted that due to significant change in the economy including the policies of the Govt. of India during the fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18 like de-monetization and implementation of Goods & Services Tax, the entire working of the finance sector was impaired and as such sought extension of time till 31-03-2019 to comply with the requirements.

Now despite seeking extension of time, having given explanations to the SCNs, the CoRs were cancelled without an opportunity for the NBFCs to be heard.

 

The Decision

It was argued that there is a remedy provided against the cancellation of the CoRs, the petitioners had chosen to invoke Article 226 contending violation of the principles of justice. The proviso to Section 45-IA(6) relates to the contentions in regards to cancellation of the CoRs.

“45-IA. Requirement of registration and net owned fund –

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a non-banking financial company in existence on the commencement of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997 and having a net owned fund of less than twenty five lakh rupees may, for the purpose of enabling such company to fulfil the requirement of the net owned fund, continue to carry on the business of a nonbanking financial institution–

(i) for a period of three years from such commencement; or

(ii) for such further period as the Bank may, after recording the reasons in writing for so doing, extend,

subject to the condition that such company shall, within three months of fulfilling the requirement of the net owned fund, inform the Bank about such fulfilment:

Provided further that before making any order of cancellation of certificate of registration, such company shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(7) A company aggrieved by the order of rejection of application for registration or cancellation of certificate of registration may prefer an appeal, within a period of thirty days from the date on which such order of rejection or cancellation is communicated to it, to the Central Government and the decision of the Central Government where an appeal has been preferred to it, or of the Bank where no appeal has been preferred, shall be final:

Provided that before making any order of rejection of appeal, such company shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The decision was taken on two grounds. First, the statute specifically provides for an opportunity of personal hearing besides calling for an explanation. The amended provision is very particular that opportunity of being personally heard is mandatory, as the very amendment relates to finance companies, which are already carrying on business also. Not affording this opportunity would cripple the business of the petitioners.

Second, the amended section provides NBFCs sufficient time to enhance their NOF by carrying on business and comply with the notifications. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders by the RBI requires interference. Resultantly, the respondents (RBI authorities) are directed to restore the CoR of the petitioners and also extend the time given to the petitioners.

 

The Latest Judgement

The judgement pronounced as on 22nd April, 2019 was an appeal by the RBI to the aforementioned writ petitions. This latest decision which ruled in favour of the RBI had contentions on several grounds. However, all of them stem (invocation of sub-clauses) from the following four.

First, the RBI against the order in the writ petitions submitted that there is an appeal remedy available and the petitioners without availing such remedy have filed the petitions and as such petitions ought not to have been entertained.

Second that there were only four such companies (the ones above) who sought writ petitions and the remaining numbering more than 40 Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) have filed statutory appeals and therefore, the petitioners should be relegated to avail the appeal remedy.

Third, the present cancellation is owed to the petitioners’ failure to comply with the NOF conditions issued by the RBI. The notification dated 27.03.2015 specifying 200 lakhs as NOF for NBFCs to carry or commence operations has not been challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, if they do not achieved the said conditions, they cannot to continue to remain in business.

Fourth, it was submitted that the reasons assigned by the petitioners in the reply to the show cause notice were considered and the reasons not being sustainable were thus rejected.

 

Conclusion

This was a landmark hearing in the case of NBFCs with increasing pressure as of recent times. Many NBFCs may now apply for restoration of their licenses as per the present laws or file for statutory appeals. The case stands as an indication of the firm regulatory policies of the RBI amidst the environment of credit uncertainty. The last statement of the judgement also stands apt here. The brief sentence read, “Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/rbi-cancels-license-of-56-nbfcs-bajaj-finserv-gives-away-license/articleshow/50045835.cms?from=mdr

[2] https://www.businessinsider.in/indias-central-bank-has-scrapped-the-licenses-of-nearly-400-nbfcs-so-far-this-year/articleshow/65698193.cms

[3] https://www.firstpost.com/business/ilfs-dhfl-shocks-may-be-temporary-triggers-but-the-bad-news-for-indian-financial-markets-do-not-end-there-5248071.html

[4] https://enterslice.com/learning/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Madras-high-court-Judgement-on-NBFC-License-Cancellation.pdf

[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91785347/

Concerns on Going Concern: Proposed amendments in Liquidation Regulations need relook

–  Vinod Kothari

 

The possibility of going concern sales in liquidations, visualised by Adjudicating Authorities in several early cases, got a regulatory recognition vide IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2018. Since then, there has been a lot of work on how exactly will going concern sale work in liquidation. Our previous write- ups on going concern sale are Liquidation sale as going concern: The concern is dead, long live the concern! and Enabling Going Concern Sale in Liquidation. IBBI itself has organised several meetings around this; there have been meetings organised by other groups such as Society of Insolvency Practitioners of India (SIPI).

 

Recently, the IBBI released a draft of the amendments to the Liquidation Regulations[1], which includes regulatory amendments pertaining to going concern sale as well.

 

This Note highlights the need to have a relook at these proposed amendments, in context of going concern sale.

Read more

Anomaly relating to much awaited e-form DPT-3

By CS Smriti Wadehra | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

 

Introduction

MCA on January 22, 2019 had issued a Notification[1] prescribing certain amendments in the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 (‘Rules’) requiring every company (except government companies) to file:

  • a return of deposit;
  • particulars of transaction not considered as deposit; or
  • both

It is a one-time filing return, specifying the details of outstanding receipt of money or loan which have not been considered as deposits under the Rules. For filing the said dorm, the Rules specified that the reporting should be of receipt of money or loan from April 1, 2014 till January 22, 2019 and which are outstanding as on the date of filing. Further, the reporting should be done within 90 days from January 22, 2019. However, the e-form for such filing was not released by MCA.

Thereafter, on April 30, 2019, MCA vide its Notification[2] dated April 30, 2019 notified the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Second Amendment Rules, 2019, according to which the reporting in the one-time return (i.e., e-form DPT-3) has to be done for receipt of money or loan from April 1, 2014 till March 31, 2019. Also, the filing due-date has been extended to ninety days from March 31, 2019.

This extension was much required as the electronic version of the said form was not released by MCA. However, MCA has on the same day released the e-form as well and hence, we shall now discuss the requirements of the said form.

Requirement of Law

Referring to the erstwhile notification read with the recent general circular of MCA dated April 13, 2019, we may summarise the reporting requirement of e-Form DPT-3 as under:

  1. One time return giving the details of the outstanding receipt of money or loan which have not been considered as deposits as per Rule 2(1)(c) of the Rules for the period from 1st April, 2014 till 31st March, 2019;
  2. Periodic return which will give the details of particulars of transactions which are not considered as deposits as per Rule 2(1)(c) of the Rules within 30th June of every year containing details as on 31st March;
  3. Return for deposit which is to be filed within 30th June of every year.

At the advent of notification of the Rules, companies were under ambiguity as to how the reporting of such one-time return shall be done. Further, the e-Form also required auditor’s certificate as an attachment, but it was unclear that whether companies whwich have not received any amount as deposit were also required to provide an auditor’s certificate in this regard. Moreover, there were confusion as whether companies have to provide audited figures in the said form or otherwise. However, the e-Form was expected to clear these confusions.

Anomaly in e-Form

Even after the release of the much awaited form, the anomaly still exists. Following are the certain ambiguities in the e-Form, for which MCA’s clarification shall be awaited:

a)    Whether DPT-3 required to be filed twice?

Rule 16 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 provides:

“Explanation.- It is hereby clarified that Form DPT-3 shall be used for filing return of deposit or particulars of transaction not considered as deposit or both by every company other than Government company.”

Further, the provisions of Rule 16A of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 provides:

“Every company other than Government company shall file a onetime return of outstanding receipt of money or loan by a company but not considered as deposits, in terms of clause (c) of sub-rule 1 of rule 2 from the 01st April, 2014 to the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, as specified in Form DPT-3 within ninety days from the date of said publication of this notification along with fee as provided in the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.”

On the combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, we understand that companies have to file e-Form DPT-3 as an annual requirement only, as  a return of deposit of transactions not considered as deposits every year by 30th June and also as a one-time return of outstanding money not considered deposits from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019. However, the e-Form as well as the Rules does not specify any such requirement. Accordingly,  companies are still under the ambiguity as – whether  filing of only  one-time return shall suffice for this financial year or two separate filing has to be done.

b)    Requirement of attaching auditor’s certificate

The e-Form DPT-3 requires companies to attach auditor’s certificate. Though not mandatory attachment, the companies are unclear as to whether the amount to be mentioned in the return has to be audited by a statutory auditor and a certificate of auditor has to be attached in each case or management certified accounts shall suffice? The e-Form does not clarify the instance.

Further, companies which shall be filing that they have not accepted any deposit or the money accepted does not qualifies to be a deposit – in such case, it is still unclear whether the auditor’s certificate certifying the company’s declaration is required or not.

Conclusion

Despite the time taken by the Ministry for coming up with the e-Form, we understand that there are still many irregularities in the e-Form as discussed briefly in our note and which has to be addressed by the Ministry. Meanwhile, considering the first day of deployment of this e-Form, we assume that there will be certain revision in the said form which might address the ambiguities.

You may also read our article on “MCA requires reporting of ‘what is not a deposit’ here- Link to the article


[2]
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAcceptanceDepositsSecAmendRules_01052019.pdf[1] http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/AcceptanceDepositsAmendmentRule_22012019.pdf

Understanding ACTIVE and its difficulties

Dibisha Mishra (dibisha@vinodkothari.com) (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

 

Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) vide its notification dated 21st February, 2019 brought the Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules, 2019 which shall be effective from 25th February, 2019. The aforesaid amendment mandated every company incorporated on or before the 31st December, 2017 to file e-form ACTIVE (Active Company Tagging Identities and Verification) on or before 25th April, 2019.

Further, in view of the practical difficulties faced by the stakeholders, MCA vide its notification dated 25th April, 2019 extended the time limit for filing the said e-form till 15th June, 2019.

This note covers the significant aspects on the ACTIVE form and practical difficulties faced by the stakeholders for bringing the same to the notice of the concerned authorities. Read more

E-form AGILE- Consolidation of various registrations along with company incorporation

By Dibisha Mishra (dibisha@vinodkothari.com) (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

There has been a series of changes brought in by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) in recent years to bring in better transparency, easier compliance and weed out hurdles in the way of Ease of doing Business. In furtherance of the same, MCA vide notification dated 29th March, 2019, notified Companies (Incorporation) Third Amendment Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Amended Rules)[i] which has upgraded the existing SPICe form with a view to bring in a single window system for making application under GST, Employees Provident Fund Organization (‘EFPO’) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (‘ESIC’).

These additional services are being catered via e-form INC-35 named as ‘AGILE’ which shall be  linked with SPICe (e-form INC-32) during filing with MCA. It is to be noted that though linking of the form is mandatory, option of availing the aforementioned services is left to the applicant. The company can very well choose the services which it wishes to avail.

The main features along with the technicalities of the incorporation process prior to the Amended Rules have been covered in our earlier article[ii]. This write up covers the highlights of AGILE along with a brief discussion on some practical aspects. Read more

NBFCs get another chance to reinstate NOF

By Falak Dutta, (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Since the Sarada scam in 2015, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had been on high alert and had been subsequently tightening regulations for NBFCs, micro-finance firms and such other companies which provide informal banking services. As of December 2015, over 56 NBFC licenses were cancelled[1]. However, recently in light of the uncertain credit environment (recall DHFL and IF&LS) among other reasons, RBI has cancelled around 400 licenses [2]in 2018 primarily due to a shortfall in Net Owned Funds (NOF)[3] among other reasons. The joint entry of the Central Govt. regulators and RBI to calm the volatility in the markets on September 21st, 2018 after an intra-day fall of over 1000 points amid default concerns of DHFL warrants concern. Had it been two isolated incidents the regulators and Union government would have been unlikely to step in. The RBI & SEBI issued a joint statement on September saying they were prepared to step in if market volatility warrants such a situation. This suggests a situation which is more than what meets the eye.

Coming back to NBFCs, over half of the cancelled NBFC licenses in 2018 could be attributed to shortfall in NOFs. NOF is described in Section 45 IA of the RBI Act, 1934. It defines NOF as:

1) “Net owned fund” means–

(a) The aggregate of the paid-up equity capital and free reserves as disclosed in the latest

Balance sheet of the company after deducting therefrom–

(i) Accumulated balance of loss;

(ii) Deferred revenue expenditure; and

(iii) Other intangible assets; and

(b) Further reduced by the amounts representing–

(1) Investments of such company in shares of–

(i) Its subsidiaries;

(ii) Companies in the same group;

(iii) All other non-banking financial companies; and

(2) The book value of debentures, bonds, outstanding loans and advances

(including hire-purchase and lease finance) made to, and deposits with,–

(i) Subsidiaries of such company; and

(ii) Companies in the same group, to the extent such amount exceeds ten per cent of (a) above.

At present, the threshold amount that has to be maintained is stipulated at 2 crore, from the previous minimum of 25 lakhs. Previously, to meet this requirement of Rs. 25 lakh a time period of three years was given. During this tenure, NBFCs were allowed to carry on business irrespective of them not meeting business conditions. Moreover, this period could be extended by a further 3 years, which should not exceed 6 years in aggregate. However, this can only be done after stating the reason in writing and this extension is in complete discretion of the RBI. The failure to maintain this threshold amount within the stipulated time had led to this spurge of license cancellations in 2018.

However, the Madras High Court judgement dated 29-1-2019 came as a big relief to over 2000 NBFCs whose license had been cancelled due a delay in fulfilling the shortfall.

 

THE JUDGEMENT[4]

The regulations

On 27-3-2015 the RBI by notification No. DNBR.007/CGM(CDS)-2015 specified two hundred lakhs rupees as the NOF required for an NBFC to commence or carry on the business. It further stated that an NBFC holding a CoR and having less than two hundred lakh rupees may continue to carry on the business, if such a company achieves the NOF of one hundred lakh rupees before 1-04-2016 and two hundred lakhs of rupees before 1-04-2017.

The Petitioner’s claim

The petition was filed by 4 NBFCs namely Nahar Finance & Leasing Ltd., Lodha Finance India Ltd., Valluvar Development Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Senthil Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the cancellation of CoR[5] against the RBI. The petitioners claim that they had been complying with all the statutory regulations and regularly filing various returns and furnishing the required information to the Registrar of Companies. These petitions were in response to the RBI issued Show Cause Notices to the petitioners proposing to cancel the CoR and initiate penal action. The said SCNs were responded to by the petitioners contending that they had NOF of Rs.104.50 lakhs, Rs.34.19 lakhs, Rs.79.50 lakhs and Rs.135 lakhs respectively, as on 31.03.2017.

Valluvar Development Finance also sent a reply stating that they had achieved the required NOF on 23-10-2017, attaching a certificate from the Statutory Auditor to support its claim. The other petitioners however submitted that due to significant change in the economy including the policies of the Govt. of India during the fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18 like de-monetization and implementation of Goods & Services Tax, the entire working of the finance sector was impaired and as such sought extension of time till 31-03-2019 to comply with the requirements.

Now despite seeking extension of time, having given explanations to the SCNs, the CoRs were cancelled without an opportunity for the NBFCs to be heard.

 

The Decision

It was argued that there is a remedy provided against the cancellation of the CoRs, the petitioners had chosen to invoke Article 226 contending violation of the principles of justice. The proviso to Section 45-IA(6) relates to the contentions in regards to cancellation of the CoRs.

“45-IA. Requirement of registration and net owned fund –

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a non-banking financial company in existence on the commencement of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997 and having a net owned fund of less than twenty five lakhs rupees may, for the purpose of enabling such company to fulfill the requirement of the net owned fund, continue to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution–

(i) for a period of three years from such commencement; or

(ii) for such further period as the Bank may, after recording the reasons in writing for so doing, extend,

subject to the condition that such company shall, within three months of fulfilling the requirement of the net owned fund, inform the Bank about such fulfillment:

Provided further that before making any order of cancellation of certificate of registration, such company shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(7) A company aggrieved by the order of rejection of application for registration or cancellation of certificate of registration may prefer an appeal, within a period of thirty days from the date on which such order of rejection or cancellation is communicated to it, to the Central Government and the decision of the Central Government where an appeal has been preferred to it, or of the Bank where no appeal has been preferred, shall be final:

Provided that before making any order of rejection of appeal, such company shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The decision was taken on two grounds. First, the statute specifically provides for an opportunity of personal hearing besides calling for an explanation. The amended provision is very particular that opportunity of being personally heard is mandatory, as the very amendment relates to finance companies, which are already carrying on business also. Not affording this opportunity would cripple the business of the petitioners.

Second, the amended section provides NBFCs sufficient time to enhance their NOF by carrying on business and comply with the notifications. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders by the RBI requires interference. Resultantly, the respondents (RBI authorities) are directed to restore the CoR of the petitioners and also extend the time given to the petitioners.

 

CONCLUSION

This was a landmark hearing in the case of NBFCs as they had been under increasing pressure as of recent times. Many NBFCs can now apply for restoration of their licenses and might already have. The case doesn’t just stand the case for NOF conflicts but will also ring in the minds of regulators in the future, compelling greater caution and concern. The last statement of the judgement stands apt here. The brief sentence read,” Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/rbi-cancels-license-of-56-nbfcs-bajaj-finserv-gives-away-license/articleshow/50045835.cms?from=mdr

[2] https://www.businessinsider.in/indias-central-bank-has-scrapped-the-licenses-of-nearly-400-nbfcs-so-far-this-year/articleshow/65698193.cms

[3] https://www.firstpost.com/business/ilfs-dhfl-shocks-may-be-temporary-triggers-but-the-bad-news-for-indian-financial-markets-do-not-end-there-5248071.html

[4] https://enterslice.com/learning/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Madras-high-court-Judgement-on-NBFC-License-Cancellation.pdf

[5] Certificate of Registration