Consolidation of RBI Directions Ver 2.0

/0 Comments/in /by

Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Following the consolidation action undertaken by the Department of Regulations (DoR) in November 2025, the Department of Supervision has now undertaken a comprehensive exercise to consolidate existing standalone circulars issued by RBI in supervisory domain into function-wise, entity-specific consolidated Directions for easier navigation and application. The supervisory instructions have been organised into distinct Directions for each type of RE on each supervisory function.

  1. Compliance Function– Prescribing the guidelines for compliance risk assessment and appointment of the chief compliance officer.
  2. Concurrent Audit– This is specifically applicable in case of banks and not NBFCs. In case of NBFCs, the Auditor’s Report Directions lays down the disclosures and reporting by auditors of NBFCs
  3. Cybersecurity, Technology: Risk, Resilience and Assurance- Provides comprehensive guidelines on IT governance and policy, information security and cybersecurity, IT operations, information system audit, BCP, disaster recovery and IT services outsourcing.
  4. Digital Payments Security Controls- Provides guidelines for credit-card issuing NBFCs on   governance and security risk mitigation, authentication framework, fraud risk management, reconciliation mechanism, grievance redressal mechanism, web application, mobile application and card payment security controls.
  5. Fraud Risk Management- Lays down the process for identification and classification of fraudulent borrowers and the implementation of early warning signals (EWS)
  6. Internal Audit Function or Risk Based Internal Audit- Provides for harmonised Internal Audit systems and processes to be implemented by larger NBFCs (Deposit Taking and entities having asset size above ₹5000 cr) 
  7. Statutory Audit- Lays down the regulations for appointment of statutory auditors, their eligibility criteria, intimation and reporting to the RBI, etc.
  8. Supervisory Returns- All regulatory filings and submission of returns to the RBI
  9. Miscellaneous- Consolidates the instructions for implementation of CFSS, nomination facility to be provided in case of deposit accounts, fair lending practices for charging of interest and the Prompt Corrective Action Framework. 

A detailed analysis of the drafts for NBFCs has been covered here- 

Proposed DraftExisting CircularsApplicability Key Changes
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Compliance Function) Directions, 2026Compliance Function and Role of Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) – NBFCs
Streamlining of Internal Compliance monitoring function – leveraging use of technology 		NBFCs, including HFCs, in the ML and UL.No major changes.It has been clarified that in the absence of a new product committee, the CCO shall be required to evaluate all new products before they are launched.
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Cybersecurity, Technology: Risk, Resilience and Assurance) Directions, 2026 [IT Directions]Master Direction – Information Technology Framework for the NBFC Sector (IT Framework)Reserve Bank of India (Information Technology Governance, Risk, Controls and Assurance Practices) Directions, 2023 (IT Governance)All NBFCsCICs were not required to comply requirements of IT Governance Framework, the draft IT Directions now mandate CICs to comply with the IT baseline technology standardsFor NBFCs with asset size below ₹ 500 cr-Chapter IV of IT Directions:Use of public key infrastructure (PKI) for ensuring  confidentiality of data, access control, data integrity has been made mandatory (earlier recommendatory)Timeline of reporting of cyber incidents to RBI specified as 6 hours (IT Framework did not contain any such timeline)Use of Digital Signature to authenticate electronic records has been made mandatory (earlier recommendatory)For NBFCs with asset size above ₹ 500 cr-Chapter IV of IT Directions, has specified that IT capacity requirements are now to be ensured by ITSC
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Digital Payment Security Controls) Directions, 2026Master Direction on Digital Payment Security ControlsCard issuing NBFCs There is additional expectation that Risk and Control Self Assessment (RCSA) shall be conducted by vendors as well and such RCSA should be evaluated by the Credit-Card issuing NBFC.Credit-Card issuing NBFCs are required to comply with a number of technical standards for card payment security. Status of compliance with these standards are to be reported to the ITSC for deliberation and appropriate action.
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Fraud Risk Management) Directions, 2026Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management in Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) (including Housing Finance Companies)
FAQs on Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management in Regulated Entities (REs), 2024		NBFC-ML, NBFC-UL,NBFC-BL having asset size ₹500 crores and aboveHFCs.No Change. FAQs integrated with the circular. 
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Internal Audit Function) Directions, 2026Risk-Based Internal Audit (RBIA)All Deposit taking NBFCs and HFCs Non-Deposit taking NBFCs and HFCs with asset size of ₹5,000 crore and aboveNo Change
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Statutory Audit) Directions, 2026Guidelines for Appointment of Statutory Central Auditors (SCAs)/Statutory Auditors (SAs) of Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs), UCBs and NBFCs (including HFCs)
FAQs on Guidelines for Appointment SCAs/ SAs of Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs), UCBs and NBFCs (including HFCs)		NBFCs and HFCs having asset size ₹1000 crores and aboveNo Change. FAQs integrated with the circular. 
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Supervisory Returns) Directions, 2026Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Filing of Supervisory Returns) Directions – 2024
LIST OF RETURNS SUBMITTED TO RBI		All NBFCs (excluding HFCs)Change in name of return DNBS09 from DNBS09-CRILC Weekly– RDB return to DNBS09- Return on Defaulted Borrowers.Quarterly return on Large Exposure Framework to be filed quarterly by all NBFCs in the Upper Layer – The earlier requirement was reporting of 10 largest exposures of the entity as against the proposed requirement of reporting the top 20 largest exposures. Change in nomenclature of returns on fraud reporting:FMR-I to FMRFMR-III to FUAFMR-IV to FMR 4Form A Certificate is now proposed to be filed online instead of filing in hard copy/ via email.It is proposed that hard copy of returns (hand/post/courier) or email submissions would not be accepted (i.e., would not be deemed to have been submitted by the NBFC) unless specifically prescribed.Additional returns to be filed by SPDs specified. 
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Miscellaneous) Supervisory Directions, 2026Implementation of ‘Core Financial Services Solution’ by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs)Fair Practices Code for Lenders – Charging of InterestCoverage of customers under the nomination facilityPrompt Corrective Action (PCA) Framework for Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs)Chapter III – All NBFCs including HFCs and MFIsChapter IV – Deposit Taking NBFCs (excl. HFCs)Chapter V- Deposit taking, Non-Depositaking, in Middle, Upper and Top Layers including CICs but excluding NBFCs not accepting/ intending to accept public funds.The phased manner timelines for implementation of CFSS has been removed since the circular is now effective 
Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Auditor’s Report) Directions, 2026Master Direction – Non-Banking Financial Companies Auditor’s Report (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016

Provisions related to DNBS-10 (SAC) in Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Filing of Supervisory Returns) Directions – 2024 		Applicable to every auditor of an NBFCClarified that the auditor is now obligated to report to the RBI instances of non-compliance with all applicable extant directions issued by RBI.
Other than the above, no major change except updation of references.

Discussion on IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and draft Regulations

/0 Comments/in , , , /by
IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2026.pptxDownload

Other resources:

IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Key Recommendations of the Select Committee

IBBI proposes strengthening the CoC’s oversight and procedural clarity in CIRP

INR Non-deliverable Derivatives barred; Added Bar for Related Parties

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– RBI’s 1st April circular bars Banks from INR-derivatives, with “related parties”, giving an Ind AS meaning to the term

In a move to maintain the integrity of INR in the evolving market conditions and avoid a potential misuse of intra-group structures to bypass regulatory constraints, the RBI has issued revised instructions on Risk Management and Inter-Bank Dealings. 

Bar on non-deliverable INR derivatives:

Considering the prevailing situation in the currency market, RBI has prohibited banks from entering into derivatives involving INR on non-deliverable basis.

The bar extends to rebooking of any derivative contract, whether deliverable or non deliverable, entered before 1st April, maturing after this date.

Fx-Derivatives contracts involving INR: not permitted with related parties 

The instructions prohibit any form of foreign exchange derivative contract involving INR with their related parties. Note that, the bar is not limited to “non-deliverable” contracts, rather, extends to all forex derivative contracts involving INR. This complete bar is likely to impact the financial markets where it is quite common to undertake such derivative transactions with related parties, more particularly, in banking groups constituting one or more financial sector entities (including NBFCs, insurance entities etc.). 

What is even more interesting is that the meaning of “related party” for this purpose is drawn from Ind AS. Banks in India are currently not following Ind AS, and therefore, they maintain a list of related parties as per IGAAP, viz., AS 18. However, the Circular explicitly refers to Ind AS 24 or equivalent international standards. This, therefore, requires immediate action on the part of banks to draw a list of related parties, not on the basis of the accounting standards applicable to them (AS-18), but, on the basis of the widely recognised IAS-24 (Ind AS 24 in the Indian context). 

The instructions refer to Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 24 – Related Party Disclosures or International Accounting Standard (IAS) 24 – Related Party Disclosures or any other equivalent accounting standards. The reference thus, is not of “applicable accounting standards”, but of “equivalent accounting standards”, meaning thereby, that banks would be required to draw their list of related parties based on Ind AS 24 or its equivalent based on the country whose accounting standards are being followed by the bank in question. For instance, a foreign bank incorporated in the US will draw its definition of related party from US GAAP (ASC 850) being the equivalent of IAS 24. 

Proposals in Companies Act, 2013 via Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026: Key Highlight

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Other resources:

Webinar on the Bill: https://youtube.com/live/8TqQJgxMATo

Corporate Laws Amendment Bill: Recognizing LLPs in IFSCA, decriminalisation  and easing compliances for AIF LLPs
Corporate Laws Amendment Bill: Easing, Streamlining and  Updating the Regulatory Framework 

Immunity Scheme for Non-compliant and inactive companies: CCFS, 2026

/0 Comments/in /by

Kunal Gupta, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

In order to encourage defaulting companies to either complete their long pending statutory filings or opt for an exit or dormant status, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’), vide Circular dated  January 24, 2026, has come up with ‘Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026’ (‘CCFS, 2026’). This scheme offers one time immunity to eligible companies (detailed below) in two key ways: (a) updating statutory filings with reduced additional fees; and (b) enabling inactive or defunct companies to opt for dormancy or closure at lower fees. These benefits are available from April 15, 2026, to July 15, 2026. 

This write-up discusses the applicability of the CCFS, 2026 and related concerns.

Companies eligible to avail CCFS, 2026 

All companies are eligible to avail benefit of CCFS, 2026, except the following-

  1. Companies against which action of final notice u/s 248 (1) of CA, 2013 has already been initiated by the Registrar;
  2. Companies which have already filed application (STK-2) u/s 248 (2) of CA, 2013 for striking off their names;
  3. Companies which have already made application u/s 455 of CA, 2013 for obtaining the status of ‘dormant company’;
  4. Companies which have been dissolved pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation without winding up;
  5. Vanishing Companies; and
  6. Companies which have not received a notice of adjudication u/s 454 (3) of CA, 2013 and 30 days have elapsed.

Validity of the ‘Scheme’

As mentioned above, the window to avail the benefit under the CCFS , 2026 is for a limited period of 3 months, i.e  from April 15, 2026 to July 15, 2026. That is, the companies, intending to avail the benefit under CCFS, 2026 shall have to file the requisite forms within the aforesaid period, failing which, normal fees along with additional fees without any concession will be applicable. 

Offers under ‘CCFS, 2026’ 

Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 provides that in case of delayed filing of statutory forms, an additional fee of Rs. 100 per day is payable for each day during which the default continues, subject to such limits as may be prescribed. Consequently, non-compliant companies may be required to pay substantial additional fees for the delayed filing of annual forms, over and above the normal filing fees.

The CCFS, 2026 provides a one- time window to all the eligible companies (discussed above) that have failed to file their statutory documents (refer list below), particularly, annual returns and financial statements, to –

  1. Get their annual filing completed by paying only 10% of the total additional fees prescribed under the law on account of delay alongwith the normal filing fees; or
  2. If there are no significant business activities in the company in atleast last 2 financial years,
    1. To get the status of ‘dormant company’ u/s 455 of the CA, 2013 by filing form MSC-1 by paying half of the normal fees payable under the rules; OR
    2. File form STK-2 to get the name of the company struck off during the currency of the Scheme by paying 25% of the filing fees.

Relevant E Forms for which immunity can be availed under ‘CCFS, 2026’

Under CCFS 2026, immunity and fee concessions are available in respect of the following  e‑forms-

E- FormParticulars
Under Companies Act, 2013 read with relevant rules made thereunder:
MGT-7 / MGT-7AFor filing annual return
AOC-4 / AOC-4 CFS / AOC-4 NBFC (Ind AS) / AOC-4 CFS NBFC (Ind AS) / AOC-4 (XBRL) For filing financial statements
ADT-1For intimation about the appointment of auditor
FC-3 / FC-4 For filing annual accounts / annual return by foreign companies in India
Under Companies Act, 1956 read with relevant rules made thereunder:
20BFor filing annual return by a company having share capital
21AFor filing particulars of annual return for the company not having share capital 
23AC / 23ACA / 23AC – XBRL / 23ACA – XBRLFor filing Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account
66For submission of Compliance Certificate with the RoC
23BFor Intimation for appointment of auditors

Some practical questions relating to CCFS, 2026

  1. If a company has already received notice from an Adjudicating officer in relation to the non-filing of Form MGT-7 for FY 2020 to FY 2025, whether such company would still be eligible to avail the benefits of the CCFS, 2026?

Response: Yes, the company would still be eligible to avail the benefits of CCFS, 2026, provided 30 days have not elapsed from the date of receipt of the adjudication notice.

  1. Whether a company incorporated in 2012, which has not filed any statutory forms or annual filings since incorporation, would be eligible to avail the benefits of CCFS, 2026?

Response: Yes, such a company may, under CCFS, 2026, either regularise its default by completing all pending filings at the concessional additional fees, or opt for an exit route by applying for striking off or for dormant status, subject to fulfilment of the specific conditions and procedures prescribed for those options

  1. Company XYZ intends to apply for striking off its name under the CCFS, 2026, whether the company is required to update all pending annual filings up to date before filing Form STK-2? Further, whether the CCFS, 2026 provides relaxation/benefits for both updating pending annual filings as well as filing for strike-off?

Response: Yes. Rule 4 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 mandates filing overdue financial statements and annual returns up to the financial year-end when the company ceased business operations.  CCFS, 2026 provides some relaxation on filing fees of STK-2 but does not exempt compliance with striking-off prerequisites. 

  1. If a company has already filed Form STK-2, which is currently pending for approval and has been marked for resubmission, whether the company can withdraw the existing application and file a fresh application under CCFS, 2026?

Response: No, CCFS, 2026 specifically rules out companies which have already filed Form STK-2 u/s 248(2) of CA, 2013 from taking benefit under this scheme.

  1. Company XYZ, a section 8 company, has not filed its annual filings for FY 2025, can it still apply for strike-off by filing Form STK-2 under the CCFS Scheme, considering that the scheme period will commence after 31 March 2026?

Response: A section 8 company cannot opt for striking off u/s 248.

  1. XYZ Pvt. Limited has received a SCN for non- filing of AOC-4 and MGT-7 for FY 2022 to FY 2025 on 1st March, 2026, can it opt for CCFS, 2026?

Response: In this case, since an SCN has already been issued on 1 March 2026 for non-filing of AOC-4 and MGT-7 for FY 2022–2025, the company would not be eligible to claim immunity or relief under CCFS, 2026.

  1. Do the benefits of CCFS, 2026 can also be availed by LLP?

Response: No, as of now, benefits under CCFS 2026 can be availed by companies only.

Concluding remarks

As an initiative to improve compliance level and ensure that the corporate registry reflects correct and up-to-date data, MCA has come up with this one-time Scheme. It’s a wake-up call for non-compliant companies to regularise themselves by updating their filings at the lowest additional fees, or to opt for dormancy or strike-off with ease at concessional filing fees. Companies should seize this opportunity to achieve statutory compliance, avoid future penalties, and contribute to a transparent business ecosystem.

Rethinking Repayment Recurrence: EMIs, EWIs or EDIs

/0 Comments/in /by

Manisha Ghosh, Assistant Manager | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

In the world of finance, where EMIs reign is supreme, a quiet revolution is brewing. For decades, the EMI—a fixed, predictable monthly payment—has been the default repayment option in case of loans.  This repayment model aligns well with the cash-flow profile of salaried borrowers, whose income is credited at predictable monthly intervals. A fixed monthly outflow is therefore rational and manageable for the borrower. But what happens when there are borrowers who don’t live by the calendar?

In India there also exists a substantial segment of borrowers with fluctuating income streams such as taxi drivers, gig workers, small traders, daily wage earners, contract-workers, etc. Their earnings are typically received on a daily or near-daily or weekly basis and may fluctuate based on demand, seasonality, or operational variables. For such a category of borrowers, imposing a lump-sum monthly repayment obligation may create liquidity stress. People with irregular income may find it difficult to set aside a large lump sum to honor the obligation on the due date, even if their total earnings over the month are sufficient. As a result, they may lead to missed payments not because they lack income or resources, but because their cash flow does not align with the repayment schedule.

To address this structural mismatch between income frequency and repayment frequency, banks and NBFCs have been exploring the option of Equated Daily Instalments (“EDIs”). Under an EDI structure, the repayment obligation is broken into smaller, more frequent daily amounts, theoretically aligning repayment with the borrower’s earning cycle and smoothing liquidity issues.

Regulatory Landscape

There is no regulatory prohibition under the RBI framework preventing lenders from offering daily repayment options in their loan products. In fact, the RBI’s Key Fact Statement (KFS) format prescribed under the Responsible Lending Conduct Directions acknowledges not only EMIs but has referred to the term Equated Periodic Instalments (‘EPI’), which has a broader meaning.

The use of the term EPI indicates that repayment need not necessarily be structured on a monthly basis. Rather, lenders are permitted to determine an appropriate repayment frequency whether daily, weekly, fortnightly, or monthly depending on the loan product and borrower profile. The repayment frequency is arrived at by considering the source of income, cashflows of the borrower; this ensures that servicing of such loans is aligned with the borrower’s income profile and does not create any undue financial burden or pushes the borrower towards a debt trap.

Suitability of the Lending Product

Irrespective of the repayment frequency, the issue of fairness in lending still needs to be examined. In case a borrower is required to make repayments every single day, any small disruption in income will be considered as a default and have an immediate impact on the borrower’s performance. For example, if the borrower falls sick or is unable to work for a few days, their daily income may stop. In such a case, they may miss one or more installment payments. Since the due date arises daily under an EDI structure, even one missed payment can start the DPD count, and the delay will continue to add up to the repayment obligation until the payment is made.

This situation will have adverse implications not just for the borrower but also for the lender. The borrower’s credit record may worsen quickly, even if the income disruption is temporary. At the same time, the lender may see rising delinquencies in its portfolio.

While EDIs may help in synchronising repayment with daily income, they provide very little cushion to borrowers in case of unforeseen and unexpected events resulting in default in repayment. Lenders may instead consider a weekly repayment model, where borrowers can collect and accumulate their daily earnings and repay the lender on a weekly basis. 

A weekly installment structure provides the borrower with a limited but meaningful cushion. If the borrower is unable to earn on a particular day, they still have the remaining days of the week to generate income and arrange the repayment amount. This flexibility reduces the likelihood of an immediate default and offers a more balanced approach between daily and monthly repayment models. 

Operational Flexibility for Lender

From an operational perspective, daily repayments also create practical challenges. The lender would need to monitor DPD status every day, carry out daily accounting entries, and reconcile payments continuously. For a large number of borrowers, this can become difficult and resource-intensive. Further, if collections are done manually or through agents, missed payments may require daily follow-ups. This increases recovery costs and may create borrower stress or reputational risks for the lender.

Having said that, this kind of arrangement is restricted under the digital lending regulations. Paragraph 10(2) of the RBI (NBFC- Credit Facilities) Directions, 2026 mandates that all loan servicing and repayments must be executed directly by the borrower into the regulated entity’s bank account. The framework expressly prohibits the use of pass-through or pool accounts of any third party, including those of a Lending Service Provider (‘LSP’). 

Accordingly, under the current digital lending regime, repayments cannot be routed through an intermediary. This makes such a model difficult to implement for loans that are originated digitally.

Conclusion

The choice of repayment frequency should not be driven by convention alone, but by the borrower’s income pattern and capacity to absorb short-term shocks. EDIs attempt to bridge this gap, but a rigid daily obligation can expose borrowers to immediate default in the event of even minor income disruptions.

At the same time, daily repayment structures increase operational and monitoring burdens for lenders. Therefore, the focus should be on designing repayment models that balance flexibility with discipline. Structures such as weekly repayments, grace periods, or limited flexibility mechanisms may provide a more sustainable balance. Ultimately, a well-designed repayment model protects both borrower credit health and lender portfolio quality, reinforcing the broader principles of responsible and fair lending.

Webinar on IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2026

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Register here: https://forms.gle/7z5ks94QGn1Nj4538

Webinar on IBC Amendment Act, 2026.pptx (1)Download

Other resources

IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Key Recommendations of the Select Committee

Presentation on IBC Amendment Bill, 2025

NFRA Circular on effective communication between auditors and TCWG – Frequently Asked Questions

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

FAQs on NFRA (1)Download

Other resources:

NFRA’s Call for a Two-Way Communication: A New Requirement or a Gentle Reminder?

RBI’s 3-month breather for new rules on capital market exposures

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

At the fag end of the financial year, just before the Amendment Directions on Capital Market Exposures (originally issued on 13th February, 2026) were to become effective, the 30th March 2026 Press Release by RBI has the effect of deferring the applicability of and substituting the same with Revised Amendment Directions to address certain representations from the stakeholders. 

Revised Applicability Date: 

  • Effective from 1st July 2026 instead of 1st April 2026
  • Banks may opt for early adoption in its entirety

This would mean an additional window of 3 months towards implementation of the revised rules on capital market exposures. 

Acquisition Finance: clarifications on mergers and amalgamation, on-lending for acquisition permitted: target not to be a financial entity

  • Mergers and amalgamations permitted within acquisition finance, definition amended [Para 4(1)(ia)]
    • This is a clarificatory change
  • Target can be non-financial entity only [Para 170A]
    • Restriction extends to indirectly acquiring control over financial entities who are subsidiaries/ JV of target entity [proviso to Para 170B]
    • Earlier Directions referred to restriction on the Acquiring entity as a financial entity, the Revised Directions extends the restrictions on the target company too, thus limiting the scope of companies that may be acquired through 
  • On-lending by Acquiring entity to subsidiaries for acquiring control permitted [Para 170E(2)]
    • Earlier, lending was permitted to subsidiary/ SPV based on strength of Acquiring company by the bank, now, the Revised Directions further permit on-lending by the Acquiring entity to its subsidiary
  • Potential synergies to be collectively met for all companies of a group acquired pursuant to acquisition finance [Para 170B]
  • Lending to subsidiary/ SPV based on strength of Acquiring company, corporate guarantee to be provided by Acquiring company

Capital Market Intermediaries: relief that does not last long

  • Bank financing for proprietary trading permitted subject to 100% collateral in the form of cash and cash equivalents [third proviso to Para 219ZA]
    • While the proviso enables bank finance, in view of the 100% liquid security requirements, the industry participants does not seem to consider this a favourable change towards meeting the working capital requirements. However, the 3-months’ breather may be considered a favourable step. 
  • For non-debt Mutual Funds, intraday facilities secured by guaranteed receivables not to be considered as Capital Market Exposure
    • Receivables guaranteed on account of maturity proceeds of G Secs, T-Bills, SDL, or interest from G-Sec and SDLs held by such mutual funds, or maturity proceeds of TREPS from CCIL

Lending to individuals: limits to be monitored at banking system level

  • Cap of Rs. 1 crore on lending against eligible securities and Rs. 25 lacs for IPO/ FPO/ ESOP financing to be applicable at banking system level
    • While the borrower-level limits stand increased on an individual basis, the application of such limits at a banking system level will ensure that excessive borrowings are not done by an individual borrower for capital market dealings

See a detailed article on the Amendments on Capital Market Exposures here.

Presentation on Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026

/0 Comments/in /by

– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.pptxDownload

Watch our webinar on the same here.

Read more:

Corporate Laws Amendment Bill: Recognizing LLPs in IFSCA, decriminalisation  and easing compliances for AIF LLPs

Corporate Laws Amendment Bill: Easing, Streamlining and  Updating the Regulatory Framework