External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Framework
– Heta Mehta, Senior Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Watch our video here: https://youtu.be/XaS6Eh3Ekd4
See our other resources:
– Heta Mehta, Senior Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Watch our video here: https://youtu.be/XaS6Eh3Ekd4
See our other resources:
– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
– Abhishek Namdev, Assistant Manager | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
In line with an overhaul of changes proposed in the Companies Act, 2013, the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill proposes some changes in the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008. Aimed at greater ease of doing business for corporates, the proposals are dominated by provisions to recognise LLPs operating in International Financial Services Centres by allowing them to issue and maintain share capital in foreign currency as permitted by the International Financial Services Centres Authority . Further, decriminalisation of various procedural defaults under the LLP Act have been provided for by replacing criminal provisions with civil penalties, , and easing compliances for Alternative Investment Funds which are formed asLLPs.
Read our coverage on the amendments proposed in the Companies Act, 2013 here.
Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Other resources:
– Saloni Khant, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
It is common for companies to enter into multi-year contracts in its usual business operations, to secure supply of goods or services, access to premises for operations, or for other commercial reasons etc. In the maze of RPT compliances, however, given that the transactions are usually approved by the Audit Committee and/ or shareholders on an omnibus basis, challenges arise on the ideal way of dealing with and taking approval for multi-year contracts.
The relevance of multi-year contracts in the context of RPTs arises for two reasons:
Several questions arise:
The crucial point in considering whether a contract requires yearly approval or one single approval valid for the whole contract is based on the “divisibility” of the contract – that is to say, its ability to be divided into smaller units instead of considering the contract as a whole. If it is a single contract for a fixed term, the approval of the contract is approval of the entire exchange of resources/services that takes place over such term.
The divisibility of a contract may be judged against various factors, for instance:
We discuss each of these in detail below.
Several contracts may have a fixed tenure, but does the fixity of tenure itself implies that such a contract shall be required to be approved through a single approval – valid for the whole tenure of the transaction?
There may be several contracts having a fixed term, but the fixity of term in itself may not be the essential feature in all such contracts. For example, a contract might have been entered into 3 years for supply of certain goods or services. While the tenure of the contract is 3 years, each instance of supply of goods or services constitutes an independent divisible supply in itself. Hence, in such cases, merely based on the tenure of the contract, the indivisibility of such arrangement cannot be argued.
In a multi-year contract, there are usually payment milestones based on performance of the contract. For example, a contract for development of software may contain milestones, such as, (i) development of UAT model, (ii) development of final software interface, and (iii) activation of the software etc. While the contract value may be divided based on the three different stages or milestones specified in the contract – it is important to note that the performance of the contract becomes complete only upon activation of the software, and hence, the divisions based on the performance milestones do not have an independent existence. Hence, dividing the contract would not be feasible here.
The most important factor in considering the divisibility of a contract is the actual performance of the contract. Whether the contract is of such nature that the delivery happens “over a period of time”, or is it such that while the exchange of resources/ services take place over the tenure of the term, the performance may be said to be complete only “at a point of time”.
Period of time v. point of time: drawing reference from Ind AS 115
In order to understand the divisibility of a contract based on ‘period of time’ v/s ‘point of time’- reference may be drawn from its closest equivalent under Ind AS 115 read with its guidance note for the purpose of revenue recognition.
Ind AS 115 specifies conditions based on which it may be said that the performance obligation is satisfied and revenue is required to be recognised over a period of time: [Para 35]
Where none of these conditions are satisfied, the performance obligation in the contract is considered to be satisfied at a point in time.
(a) the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits provided by the entity’s performance as the entity performs;
The key question here is if the performance of the contract is stopped midway, would the customer still be considered to have benefitted from the performance already done?
For e.g., in a rental agreement, the tenant takes the benefit of the premises simultaneously. Even if the tenancy is terminated midway, it does not take away the benefits already enjoyed by such tenant during the period of the contract, he would remain benefitted for the fulfilled period of tenancy.
This may be compared with a construction agreement, where, in the event of an early termination of the contract, the performance obligations would remain incomplete, with no benefits to the customer for the period of time during which the service has been performed prior to its termination. Even where the work is rerouted to another supplier, it would require substantial rework.
(b) the entity’s performance creates or enhances an asset (for example, work in progress) that the customer controls as the asset is created or enhanced;
The renovation of an office building owned by the customer would amount to a contract over a period of time. The service may be terminated midway and can be completed by another service provider since the control of the asset remains with the owner at all times.
(c) the entity’s performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to the entity and the entity has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date.
The term ‘an alternative use’ must be considered from the perspective of practical limitations and contractual restrictions. Where the nature of the asset is such that it cannot be redirected to another contract, for example – machinery with unusual specifications cannot be sold to another customer, it is said to not have an alternative use. Even where the resources are portable, but the contractual terms restrict such redirection, there is no alternative use.
In such cases, where a contract is terminated midway, the service provider must have the right to receive payment on quantum meruit basis i.e. the work is sufficiently divisible to assess the payment due to the supplier.
When a contract fulfills any of the three conditions, it satisfies one principle criteria:
Any exit from the contract may require the contractual parties to replace the party, and may have penal consequences, but it is not as if the contract was not performed at all.
Where the transaction is a single indivisible contract i.e. takes place over a period of time, the IND AS recognises revenue over time by measuring the progress in the performance of the contract[1]. Accordingly, the transaction must be placed in its entirety with its full value for approval before the audit committee, the board of directors and the shareholders (if the materiality threshold is crossed). The transactions placed before all the three bodies must be aligned. Once approved, the actual implementation of the transaction shall come merely for review before the audit committee on a yearly basis in terms of section III.B.5 of the SEBI Master Circular dated January 30, 2026.
An interesting question arises here. Once approved, shall this amount be aggregated with new proposed transactions in the next year? Let us consider an illustration here. The materiality threshold for A Ltd. (listed entity) is Rs. 2000cr. In FY 25-26, A enters into a construction contract (single indivisible multiyear contract) and in FY 26-27, a contract for purchase of goods (one off transaction) with B Ltd for various amounts as tabulated below:
| S. No. | FY 25-26 | FY 26-27 | |||||
| Construction Contract Amt (Rs.) (I) | Whether I is material and approved by shareholders? | Purchase Contract Amt (Rs.) (II) | Whether II is material and needs shareholders’ approval? | Whether (I) and (II) shall be aggregated for materiality threshold? | Does the aggregate of (I) and (II) cross the materiality threshold? | Whether (I) shall be placed for noting before shareholders? | |
| 1 | 1000cr | No | 500cr | No | Yes | No | No |
| 2 | 1000cr | No | 1500cr | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | 1000cr | No | 2300cr | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4 | 3000cr | Yes | 1 | No | No | No | Already approved by the shareholders |
| 5 | 3000cr | Yes | 2500cr | Yes | Not required | Yes | |
For the first 3 cases, the transactions are aggregated for testing the material threshold since transaction (I), even though ongoing in FY 26-27, has never been placed before the shareholders. In effect, in case 2, the actual transactions ongoing with B in FY26-27 are crossing the materiality threshold and thus, must be placed for approval before the shareholders.
In case 3, while Transaction (II) crosses the threshold independently, it is only logical for the shareholders to be apprised of the other ongoing transactions (Transaction I) with the same RP to understand the true position of the transactions between the RP and the listed entity. The Industry Standard Note on RPTs (ISN), anyways, requires this disclosure. [Part A(3)] Read our latest article on the ISN: Repetitive Overhaul: RPT regime to get softer
In case 4, Transaction (I) has already been placed before the shareholders for approval. If its value is aggregated with Transaction (II), even a Rs. 1 transaction will require the approval of the shareholders. The essence of the materiality thresholds is seeking approval for material contracts. Such aggregation would defeat the very intent of the law.
In case 5, Transaction (I) is already approved by the shareholders and Transaction (II) crosses the materiality threshold independently. There arises no question of aggregation.
Thus, the decision of aggregating the value of a single indivisible contract in the previous FY for materiality thresholds in the current FY depends upon
On the other hand, where the transaction is a divisible contract over a term, the estimated value to be utilised in that particular year may be placed for approval before the audit committee, board of directors and shareholders, as the case may be. In case a material transaction was approved by the audit committee on an omnibus basis, it shall continue to be placed before the shareholders. [Section III.B.5 of the Master Circular]. Since the yearly value of the transaction is being approved and utilised, there arises no question of aggregation of previously approved value with proposed transactions in a new FY.
The law enables securing transparent approvals for indivisible contracts. The ISN requires an estimated break-up financial year-wise in case of a transaction spanning over multiple years to be placed before the audit committee as well as shareholders, as the case may be [Para A5(5)]. (See our FAQs on the Industry Standard Note)
Further, while disclosing RPTs on a half yearly basis as a part of quarterly integrated filing (governance) to the stock exchange, the Master Circular requires disclosure of the aggregate value of the RPT as approved by the Audit Committee as well as the value of transaction during the reporting period.
With SEBI settling RPT approval related non-compliances for settlement fees running into crores[2], compliance officers need to tread more carefully than ever. Deciding whether a multi year contract should be approved as a whole or in parts remains a crucial decision, particularly in the absence of detailed guidance under Companies Act and SEBI LODR. While accounting standards primarily address revenue recognition and may not directly apply to all RPTs, the principles outlined therein can still offer useful guidance in navigating such situations.
[1] Para 39 of the IND AS 115
[2]https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders/feb-2026/settlement-order-in-the-matter-of-kalyani-steels-limited_99922.html
Refer to our other resources:
Last date of application: 16th April, 2026
Register here: https://forms.gle/1iR2xaFKGBU1kRJ3A
Read our brief analysis of the proposals here:
Corporate Laws Amendment Bill: Easing, Streamlining and Updating the Regulatory Framework
– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
The Statement of Objects and Reasons refers to the Govt’s constant “endeavour to facilitate greater ease of doing business for corporates”; after reading through the provisions of the Bill, that indeed seems to be the intent, though, as happens often, the intent may get miscarried. The provisions are admittedly inspired by the recommendation of the 2025 High Level Committee on Non-financial Regulatory Reforms.
Broadly, the Bill focuses on decriminalisation, streamlining of provisions, bringing more audit quality oversight with powers to NFRA, regulation of the profession of valuations, etc. While doing so, it also makes the provisions of the State more aligned to present day realities, permitting greater digitisation, recognising concepts such as stock-appreciation rights or similar share-related benefits, etc. Note that the Bill has been referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Presently, the Companies Act does not include specific provisions to enable companies to prepare accounts or financial statements in foreign currencies. Taking into account the nature of companies set up in IFSC jurisdiction, this is a welcome change. It also seeks to clarify that such companies shall pay fees, fines and penalties under the Companies Act and the rules made thereunder in Indian rupees.
IBBI to be Valuation Authority; valuers get significant powers and responsibilities
Striking off names of defunct companies – [Sec 248]
| Section | Action | Existing Penalty | Proposed Penalty |
| 4(5)(ii) | Name applied by furnishing wrong or incorrect information | Upto 1 Lakh | 50, 000 |
| 42(10) | Makes offer or accepts money in contravention of sec. 42 | Upto money raised through private placement or 2 crore, whichever is lower | Money raised through private placement or 2 crore, whichever is lower |
| 128(6) | MD, WTD, CEO fails to comply with Section 129 | 50,000 – 5,00,00 | 5,00,000 – listed company and 50,000 -any other company |
| 166(8) | Director violated the provisions of sec. 166 except sub-section (5) | 1 lakh – 5 lakh | Listed company – 5 lakhOther company – 2 lakh |
| 189 | Fails to comply with provisions w.r.t Register of contracts or arrangements in which directors are interested | NA | 2 lakh |
| 446B | Lesser Penalty for certain companies | In case of Company- upto 50% of penalty specified in provisions upto 2 lakh In case of officer in default or any other person- upto 50% of penalty specified in provisions upto 1 lakh | In case of Company- 50% or such per cent not exceeding the 50% penalty prescribed in such provision upto 2 lakh In case of officer in default or any other person-50% or such per cent not exceeding the 50% penalty prescribed in such provision upto 1 lakh |
| Section | Action | Existing FIne | Proposed Penalty |
| 128(6) | MD, WTD, CEO fails to comply with Section 128 | 50,000 – 5,00,000 | 5,00,000 – listed company and 50,000 -any other company |
| 147(1) | Punishment for contravention of provisions of sections 139 to 146 | Company- Fine – 25,000 – 5,00,000 OID – Fine – 10,000 – 1,00,000 | Company – Penalty – 1,00,000 – 5,00,000 OID – Penalty – 25,000 – 1,00,000 |
| 166(7) | Default in complying with Section 166 except sub-section (5) | Director – 1,00,000 – 5,00,000 | Listed company – 5,00,000Any other Company – 2,00,000 |
| 167(2) | In case a Director continues as a director even when he knows that the office of director held by him has become vacant on account of any of the disqualifications | Director – 1,00,000 – 5,00,000 | Listed company – 5,00,000Any other Company – 2,00,000 |
Compounding of certain offences [Sec 441]
Miscellaneous [Sec 447- 470]
Read our coverage on the amendments proposed in the LLP Act, 2008 here.
-Vinod Kothari and Chirag Agarwal | finserv@vinodkothari.com
The National Credit Guarantee Trust Company (NCGTC), under the Department of Financial Services, has floated a scheme which will guarantee lending upto ₹20000 crores by banks and financial institutions (Member Lending Institutions or MLIs), for taking incremental loan exposure to MFIs. The Scheme intends to nudge bank lending to MFIs, as the former has shunned away in view of the perceived risk of the sector in the recent past. The NCGTC takes 70% – 80% risk of default of the bank loans to the MFIs, provided the lending is done accordingly with the conditions of the Scheme.
Among the conditions, the MFI must lend at least at 1% lower than the average lending rate over the last 6 months, and the MLI must lend at no more than 2% over the benchmark rate (MCLR or EBLR as applicable).
In our view, the Scheme has following outcome expectations:
Who are MLIs?
What type of loans are covered under the Scheme?
What is the interest cap under the Scheme?
What is the cap on tenure of loans under the Scheme?
Conditions for MLIs to get benefits under the Scheme:
Maximum coverage under the guarantee:
Guarantee Fee:
Claim Process:
