Representation on the Draft Directions for ‘Advertising, Marketing and Sales of Financial Products and Services by Regulated Entities’
/0 Comments/in Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI /by StaffUneasy Ease: RBI Proposes Exemption in Approval Mode for Type I NBFCs
/1 Comment/in Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI /by Team FinservThe RBI’s proposed relief to exempt pure investment companies from exemption from regulation is not a cakewalk but a hurdle race. It is not an exemption that comes in auto mode; you need to earn the right to be exempt. Some of the important pre-conditions that the RBI has proposed are:
- No automatic exemption: It is not that you qualify, and come out of registration. In fact, those proposing to come out have to make an application, based on the financials for the last 3 years. In these financial statements, there must be no direct or “indirect” access to “public funds” (including loans from loans from directors/shareholders), nor should there be any lending within the group or outside. This position shall be supported by auditors’ certificate. It is with these conditions that the RBI may, on being satisfied about the business model, grant exemption.
- Customer includes my own group: The meaning of ‘customer interface’ has been clarified to say it includes customer-oriented activity like lending or providing a guarantee, including to ‘entities in the Group’, its shareholders, its directors, or providing any other “product or service” to a customer. “Any other product or service” typically refers to customer-centric financial distribution services like mutual funds, bonds, etc.
- Money from director/shareholder will be “public” funds: For the purpose of determining public funds, any amount received from the directors and/or shareholders of the NBFC shall also be treated as public funds.
- Timelimit for making application by existing NBFCs: Type I NBFC registered with RBI as on April 1, 2026, and fulfilling the prescribed criteria for exemption, may make an application to RBI, for deregistration within a period of six months, by September 30, 2026. There is no clarity on what will happen after this date. Also, it is not clear whether existing NBFCs may change their liabilities profiles to meet the exemption conditions, and apply for exemption in future.
- Discretion of RBI: RBI shall consider the requests for deregistration if it is satisfied that NBFC is functioning with a conscious business model to operate without availing public funds and without having customer interface. Hence, the fate of deregistration is in the hands of the regulator.
- Exclusion from aggregation: The asset size of unregistered type I NBFCs shall not be consolidated with other entities in the group for determining the classification of such group NBFCs as base/middle layer entities. See details below.
- Overseas investment requires registration: Unregistered Type I NBFC, in case it intends to undertake overseas investment in the financial services sector, it shall require registration
- Continued Supervision from RBI: Exemption is only from registration requirement; however, they would continue to be subject to the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934 (primarily, transfer to reserve funds). Further, the RBI has reserved the right to issue necessary instructions specifically to ‘Unregistered Type I NBFCs’ in case any concerns/ risks are observed.
- Conditions for new entities: New entities intending to claim the exemption must satisfy these conditions- No access to public funds, no customer interface, less than ₹1000 Cr asset size, passing of annual Board resolution to not access PF and CI, disclosure in financial statements. Further, in case of violation of conditions on public funds and/or customer interface, the statutory auditor shall submit an exception report to the RBI.
Conditions for deregistration application


Analysis of options available to Type 1 NBFCs
| Type of NBFC | Options Available |
| NBFCs holding Type I Registration as on April 1, 2026 | Option 1: Apply for deregistration Option 2: Continue to remain as Type I NBFC |
| Entities that fulfil the conditions for Unregistered Type I NBFC, after April 1, 2026 | Option 1: Satisfy the conditions under 66A and remain unregistered [see box on Conditions Subsequent] Option 2: Apply for registration as Type I NBFC |
| NBFCs not having a customer interface and public funds and having an asset size below ₹1000 crores, but not registered as Type I | Option 1: Apply for deregistration Option 2: Apply for registration as Type I NBFC to avail regulatory exemptionOption 3: Maintain status quo |
| NBFCs not having a customer interface and public funds and having asset size above ₹1000 crores, but not registered as Type I | Option 1: Apply for registration as NBFC Type I Option 2: Apply for registration as NBFC Type II, in case of changes in business model |
What happens to NBFCs not availing public funds and having customer interface but not registered as Type 1?
Several NBFCs that have been registered with the RBI before the concept of Type 1 was introduced in 2016 may not have the CoR as a Type 1 NBFC in spite of the fact that as on date they don’t have access to public funds nor any customer interface. Such an NBFC with an asset size less than ₹1000 crores will still have an option to apply for deregistration, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions prescribed. However, such NBFCs in case they decide to maintain the status quo will not be eligible for the regulatory exemption available to Type 1 NBFCs.
What about new entities that meet PBC criteria?
If an entity carries investment activity with owned funds, within a limit of ₹1000 crores, does it need RBI registration? The answer seems to be – no. Such a company obviously does not have to go through the rigour of seeking registration first, and then qualifying for an exemption.
The company in question still has to satisfy the exemption conditions; and the auditor will need to give an exception report. The meaning of exception report is that if there is a breach of any of the conditions of exemption, or there is any breach of any other provisions of the law, the auditor shall be required to make an exception report.
Notably, CARO Order also requires auditors to comment on adherence to RBI regulations, which, in future, will include these conditions too.
Whether assets of multiple group entities will be aggregated?
Is the requirement of asset size being within ₹1000 crores based on stand-alone financial statements, or will the assets of companies within the group be aggregated, as is done for the purpose of determination of the middle layer status of companies?
It seems that the aggregation requirement is not there for the Type 1 exemption.
The basis for this is FAQ 13, which states as follows:
Q13. As per regulations of the Reserve Bank, total assets of all the NBFCs in a Group are consolidated to determine the classification of NBFCs in the Middle 11 Layer. What shall be the treatment given to ‘Type I NBFCs’ and ‘Unregistered Type I companies’ in this regard?
Ans: For aggregation purposes, the asset size of ‘Type I NBFCs’ shall be considered but asset size of ‘Unregistered Type I NBFCs’ shall not be considered. It is emphasized that ‘Type I NBFCs’ shall always be classified in Base Layer regardless of such aggregation.
What if I have accepted intra-group loans/granted intra-group loans, but resolve not to do so in future
Are the exemption conditions, that there is no access to public funds and no customer interface, merely a statement of intent, or must also be borne out by the conduct in any of the past 3 financial years? Looking at the definition in para 6 (14A), which reads “Not accepting public funds and not intending to accept public funds”, and likewise, “Not having customer interface and not intending to have customer interface”, it appears that the exemption conditions are both a statement of fact as well as intent. If one is negated by the fact, a mere statement of intent may not help.
However, assume there are isolated instances of intra-group loans taken or intra-group loans given. The transactions are not indicating a “business model”, at least the ones on the asset side. Are we saying that the breach of the conditions of “no public funds” and “no customer interface”, at any time during the last 3 years, will disentitle the exemption?
We do NOT think so. There are two reasons to say this:
- First, no one can cleanse the past. There is no reason to deny the exemption if the Company has cleaned up the asset side and liability side by 31st March, 2026, and resolves not to make neither of the “two sins” ever in future. Taking any other view will be unreasonable and not keep up to the intent of the regulator.
- Secondly, the language itself is clear: Para 38A (2) (iii) talks about the status of public funds and customer interface in the last 3 years. Para 38A (2) (iv) and (v) refer to auditors’ certificate and the board resolution, both referring to the position as on date, and not the past. Therefore, if the past has been undone by 31st March, 2026, we see a strong reason to qualify the exemption, except if the level of activity is indicative of “conscious business model”
Three financial years: which years?
In our view, since the deregistration application has to be made within September 30, 2026, the audited financials for FY 25-26 must have been prepared. Hence, the last three financial years that would be considered are FY 23-24, 24-25 and 25-26.
VKC comments:
It is usually hard to get a relief from a regulator, as relief is seen as a prize that you earn. If the idea was based on the premise that what does not matter for the financial system, and is still being regulated, is a burden both for the regulator and for the regulated, there would have been a more welcoming approach to exemption. Specifically:
- The extension of the definition of “public funds” to include borrowings from shareholders and directors is quite unreasonable. For private companies, deposits from shareholders and directors are exempt by law; in the case of public companies too, loans from directors are exempt. Even if we don’t lean on the law, what is taken from directors and shareholders cannot partake the character of “public”. There cannot be an element of public interest in intra-group transactions, and as a financial regulator, RBI could not have been concerned with intra-group financial accommodations.
- The definition of “customer” service to include loans to group entities is equally unexplainable. The tested definition of “customer” in case of banks/financial entities is someone who customarily avails the services of such an entity. The only intent of the regulator could have been the conduct of business concerns, primarily customer service. A group entity borrowing from another group entity is not expecting customer service standards.
- Both the definitions have been related to the historical balance sheets, with no apparent continuing exemption route. This, hopefully, will be made a continuing exemption, so that entities may carry financial and business restructuring to qualify for exemption.
The Swap that does it all: RBI introduces total return swaps on corporate bonds
/0 Comments/in Bond Market, Capital Markets, Financial Services, RBI /by Staff– Dayita Kanodia & Siddharth Pandey | finserv@vinodkothari.com
Budget 2026 proposed to introduce Total Return Swaps (TRS) for corporate bonds, purportedly as a measure for synthetic trading in corporate bonds. However, given the very slow pick up of credit default swaps, the much easier and globally prevalent version of credit derivatives, will the more esoteric TRS really make a difference? We explain what TRS is, how it differs from a CDS, give a sense of the global data on TRS as a part of OTC credit derivatives, and discuss how much the new measure will impact India’s bond market.
On February 6, RBI, in furtherance of the announcement in the Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated February 6, 2026, issued the draft revised Master Direction – RBI (Credit Derivatives) Directions, 2022. (‘Draft CD Directions’). The Draft CD Directions permit TRS to be issued to eligible persons.
Background
India’s credit derivatives market has historically remained shallow, with hardly any transanctions involving credit default swaps. This has resulted in limited hedging options focused only on default risk and an absence of tools for transferring market and price risk.
This contrasts sharply with global trends. As of mid-2025, the notional outstanding volume of OTC derivatives exceeded USD 840 trillion, with credit derivatives, despite being smaller in absolute size than interest rate or FX derivatives, recording the fastest year-on-year growth at approximately 23%.
It may be noted that as of 1996, which is when credit derivatives had almost started emerging and gaining strength, TRS transactions were significant and took up almost 32% of the market share. However, the percentage of TRS dropped. Over time, CDSs overtook the position because CDSs are more definitive and limit the risks of the protection seller. In 2025, as per 118th edition of the OCC’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities based on call report information provided by all insured U.S. commercial banks and others, the TRSs had become a smaller segment representing 4.9 per cent of the credit derivative market.
Meaning of TRS
In simple terms, a TRS swap transfers the entire volatility of returns of a reference asset from one party to another. TRS is a kind of derivative contract wherein the protection buyer agrees to transfer, periodically and throughout the term of the contract, the actual returns from a reference asset to the protection seller (“floating returns”), and the latter, in return, agrees to transfer returns calculated at a certain spread over a base rate (“fixed returns”) Total returns include the coupons, appreciation, and depreciation in the price of the reference bond. On the other hand, the protection seller will pay a certain base rate, say, risk free rate, plus a certain spread. The protection seller in the case of a TROR swap is also referred to as the total return receiver, and the protection buyer is similarly called the total return payer. The figure below illustrates the essential mechanics of a total return swap.

Impact of TRS
TRS swaps originate from synthetic equity structures, where economic returns of an asset are transferred without any actual investment in the underlying. The structure separates economic exposure from legal ownership. In a TROR swap, the economic impact is such that the total return receiver assumes the position of a synthetic lender to or investor in the bonds of the reference obligor, while the total return payer becomes a synthetic lender to the counterparty. Consider the illustration below:
- Party PB invests in the unsecured bonds of entity X carrying a fixed coupon of 9.5 per cent.
- PB then enters into a TROR swap with PS, under which PB agrees to transfer the actual returns from the bonds of X and, in return, receive MIBOR plus 100 basis points.
- Under the terms of the swap, PB periodically transfers the coupon income, plus any market price appreciation minus any market price r depreciation in the bonds, while PS periodically pays MIBOR plus 100 basis points.
- Although PB technically holds the bonds of X, in substance PB has neither exposure to X nor to the returns generated by X. Instead, PB is economically exposed to PS at MIBOR plus 100 basis points, which is equivalent to having invested in PS at that rate.
- Conversely, PS, despite not holding the bonds of X, is economically exposed to the actual returns from X’s bonds (net of MIBOR plus 100 basis points). The effect of the TROR swap is therefore to synthetically create a fully refinanced investment in the bonds of X, giving a return equal to the actual returns in the bonds, and having a funding cost equal to MIBOR plus 100 basis points.
Thus, the true impact of a TROR swap is the synthetic replacement of exposures. Consequently, the advantages of a TRS can be:
- Off-balance sheet exposure: TRS creates synthetic assets without recording loans or bonds on balance sheets improving leverage ratios and capital efficiency.
- Regulatory Arbitrage: TRS has been used to bypass investment or lending restrictions, such as exposure norms, concentration limits, etc.
- Provides very high leverage: In the above illustration, the synthetic investment made by the O in the bond is highly leveraged, assuming no margin has been put by the PS.
- Alternative to a Repo: Assume PB holds a bond and is looking at having it funded. It sells the bond to Q and simultaneously enters into a TRS transaction, paying MIBOR + spread and receiving the actual returns of the bond. Hence, PB continues to have an economic stake in the bond whereas for accounting purposes, the bond may be removed from the balance sheet of PB.
TRS structures have been used globally across a wide range of asset classes, including equities, bonds, loans, real estate and property interests, credit-linked notes, and portfolios or indices of such assets. Hence, a TRS is a credit derivative only when the reference asset is a credit asset, otherwise it is a generic total return derivative. The Draft CD Direction framework deliberately confines TRS usage to specified debt instruments in order to prevent synthetic funding and balance-sheet arbitrage.
CDS Vs TRS
| Aspects | CDS | TRS |
| Basic Definition | A credit derivative contract where a protection seller commits to pay the buyer in the event of a credit event. | A credit derivative contract where a payer transfers the entire economic performance of an asset to a receiver (protection seller). |
| Risk Transferred | Transfers only the credit risk associated with a specific obligation. The protection seller is only concerned with the risk of default or increase in credit spreads of the asset. That is, the reference transaction only shifts the risk of credit spreads | Transfers the total volatility of returns, including credit risk, interest rate risk, and market risk. The receiver gains exposure to all gains and losses (coupons, appreciation, and depreciation). |
| Cash Flow Mechanics | The buyer makes periodic premium payments to the seller until maturity or a credit event | Involves a periodic exchange of cash flow, the payer gives returns and appreciation; the receiver gives a benchmark rate + spread and depreciation. No fixed premium; the premium is inherent in the difference between actual returns and the agreed-upon spread |
| Synthetic Impact | Used primarily for credit insurance or hedging against specific default. | Used to synthetically replace the entire exposure of the parties, causing the receiver to assume the position of a synthetic lender to the reference obligation. |
Types of TRS
Total Return Swaps can be categorized into several types based on their underlying assets and funding structures:
- Index-Based TRS: Instead of a specific bond, the returns are linked to a diversified index (e.g., a broad-based index of 100 high-yield corporate bonds). The RBI specifically allows these if the index is composed of eligible debt instruments and published by an authorized administrator.
- Equity Swaps: A type of TRS where the reference asset is one or more equity securities. Here, the total return payer pays the return from the equity or the portfolio, and in turn, receives a base rate spread.
- Property Derivatives: The TRS methodology has been applied to swapping the returns of property investments also, allowing investors to synthetically invest in properties or property indices.
- Structured TRS: Here, the reference assets would be a pool of loans or bonds. The transaction will make uses of the credit-linked notes.
See further details on TRS in the book on Credit Derivatives and Structured Credit Trading by Mr Vinod Kothari
Regulatory framework for TRS
The Draft CD Directions permit the use of TRS while adding multiple safeguards to ensure that TRS functions strictly as a credit risk transfer instrument and not as a means of synthetic funding, balance-sheet arbitrage, or regulatory circumvention. The regulatory framework governs four key aspects:
- Eligible participants,
- Permissible reference assets,
- Permitted purposes for which these instruments may be used, and
- Prudential safeguards.
Eligible participants for TRS
Para 4.1.2(iii) of the revised Directions stipulates that at least one counterparty to every credit derivative transaction must be a market-maker. For this purpose, market-makers are defined to include
- Scheduled Commercial Banks,
- Large NBFCs (including HFCs and SPDs) with a minimum net owned fund of ₹500 crore, and
- Specified financial institutions such as NABARD, SIDBI, and EXIM Bank.
This requirement ensures that TRS transactions are intermediated by regulated entities with adequate risk management capabilities.
In alignment with this overarching requirement, the Draft CD Directions prescribe the following specific eligibility conditions for TRS:
- TRS may be offered only by market-makers, ensuring that such transactions are undertaken by regulated entities with adequate risk management capabilities.
- Residents (other than individuals) may enter into TRS without any restriction on the purpose, allowing both hedging and non-hedging purposes.
- Persons resident outside India may enter into TRS only for the purpose of hedging, and such TRS may be offered to them exclusively by market-makers.
Reference entities and reference assets for TRS
In addition to prescribing eligible participants, the Draft CD Directions impose strict controls on the nature of reference entities and assets that may be used for TRS transactions. These controls are intended to ensure transparency, prevent regulatory arbitrage, and avoid the creation of complex or opaque synthetic exposures.
Reference entity:
A reference entity refers to the issuer whose credit risk and economic performance form the basis of the TRS contract. For TRS, the reference entity shall be a indian resident entity that is eligible to issue Reference assets under the Draft CD Directions.
By limiting reference entities to domestic issuers of eligible debt instruments, the framework ensures that TRS activity remains in the Indian corporate debt market, which was also the regulatory intent.
Reference assets:
A reference asset refers to the underlying corporate bond or debt instrument issued by the reference entity or an index of underlying debt instruments specified in a total return swap contract. The Draft CD Directions specify the following as eligible reference assets for TRS:
- Money market debt instruments;
- Rated INR-denominated corporate bonds and debentures;
- Unrated INR-denominated corporate bonds and debentures issued by Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) set up by infrastructure companies; and
- Bonds with call and/or put options.
At the same time, the Directions expressly prohibit TRS on certain instruments, including asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, credit-enhanced or guaranteed bonds, convertible bonds, and other hybrid or structured obligations. This exclusion reflects regulatory caution against layering derivatives on complex or credit-enhanced products that could obscure risk transfer.
Index-based reference assets
The Draft CD Directions also permit a TRS to reference an index, provided that:
- The index comprises only eligible debt instruments as specified above; and
- The index is published by a financial benchmark administrator duly authorised by the RBI under the Reserve Bank of India (Financial Benchmark Administrators) Directions, 2023
Although such index based reference asset has been introduced for CDS and TRS, no such index for debt securities exists currently. Accordingly, such an index must be developed.
Preventing Regulatory circumvention:
Para 4.5.1(ii) of the Draft CD Directions expressly provides that market participants shall not undertake credit derivative transactions, including Total Return Swaps, involving reference entities, reference obligations, or reference assets where such transactions would result in exposures that the participant is not permitted to assume in the cash market, or where they would otherwise violate applicable regulatory restrictions. This provision prevents the use of TRS to bypass exposure limits, concentration norms, sectoral caps, or investment restrictions applicable to the participants.
Additional safeguards for TRS used for hedging
Where a TRS is entered into for the purpose of hedging, the market-maker is required to ensure that the user satisfies the following conditions:
- The user has an existing exposure to the relevant reference asset
- The notional amount of the TRS does not exceed the face value of the reference asset held by the user, and
- The tenor of the TRS does not extend beyond:
- The maturity of the reference asset held by the user, or
- The standard TRS maturity date is immediately following the maturity of the reference asset.
These safeguards reinforce the principle that hedging-oriented TRS must remain strictly co-terminous and proportionate to the underlying exposure, thereby avoiding over-hedging or speculations. Further, the Draft CD Direction specify that the settlement rules and standard documentation will be specified by shall be specified by the Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India (FIMMDA), in consultation with market participants. However, the market participants are allowed to, alternatively, use a standard master agreement for credit derivative contracts.
Will it impact the bond markets in India?
Will this new instrument have an impact on bond markets in India? The first instance of guidelines on credit derivatives was issued in 2011; this failed to have any impact at all. Then, after the report of the Working Group, new Credit Derivatives Directions were issued in 2022. These also, at least based on anecdotal market information, have not had any significant traction at all.
CDS is much more standardised than TRS; as we have noted above, TRS is only 4.9% of the global credit derivatives market. Will the Indian market, which has not yet picked up credit spread trading in the form of CDS, delve into a far more esoteric TRS trade? Was it based on any reasoned or surveyed market feedback that this regulatory change was inspired? These questions, a priori, are difficult to answer. However, like a new flavour of ice cream, you never know until you try it.
Other Resources:
The NBFC that doesn’t have to be: CICs and Principal Business paradox
/0 Comments/in Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI, Uncategorized /by Staff– Dayita Kanodia, Assistant Manager | finserv@vinodkothari.com
Holding Companies whose primary intent is to invest in their group companies have lately faced a paradox with respect to the requirement of registration as a Core Investment Company (CIC).
CICs are entities whose principal activity is the acquisition and holding of investments in group companies, rather than engaging in external investments or lending exposure outside the group. Para 3 of the Reserve Bank of India (Core Investment Companies) Directions, 2025 (‘CIC Directions’) prescribes the quantitative thresholds for classification of an NBFC as a CIC. In terms thereof, an NBFC that holds not less than 90% of its net assets in the form of investments in group companies, of which at least 60% is in equity instruments, is classified as a CIC and is required to obtain registration from the RBI, unless exempted.
Conceptually, a CIC is a sub-category of a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) (para 3 of the CIC Directions), just like Housing Finance Companies, Micro Finance Institutions, etc. The threshold criteria that NBFCs are required to satisfy is the principal business criteria (PBC), pursuant to which at least 50% of the total assets of the entity must consist of financial assets and at least 50% of its total income must be derived from such financial assets.
The PBC has historically served as the foundational threshold for determining whether an entity is an NBFC. Once the entity satisfies this principal requirement of carrying out financial activity, the sub-category is to be determined based on its line of business, which, lately, has seen quite a varietty – fron tradtional variants such as investment and lending activities (ICC), to housing finance (HFC), to financing of receivables (Factoring companies), the more recent inclusions are account aggregators (AA), mortgage guarantee companies (MGCs), infrastructure finance compaies (IFC), etc. Each of these NBFCs first, and then they fall in their respective class. For instance, HFCs are a type of NBFCs that primarily focus on extending housing loans and hence, must have a minimum housing loan portfolio of 60% and an individual housing loan of 50%.
Accordingly, all categories of NBFCs must first be ascertained to be carrying out financial activities as their primary business, and thereafter, the specific product helps to determine the category. Consequently, holding companies or CICs should ideally also adhere to the 50-50 criteria first and thereafter meet the 90-60 criteria for CIC classification.
However, there is a common perception among the market participants that CICs, irrespective of meeting such PBC, in case they reach the 90-60 criteria, will be required to obtain registration as a CIC. Several news reports also note this perception.
This perception among the market participants that CICs are not required to adhere to the PBC criteria stems from para 17(3) of the CIC Directions, which explicitly provides that:
“CICs need not meet the principal business criteria for NBFCs as specified under paragraph 38 of the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Registration, Exemptions and Framework for Scale Based Regulation) Directions.”
It may be noted that the above-quoted provision, which has recently been made a part of the CIC Directions pursuant to the November 28 consolidation exercise, was earlier included in the FAQs released by RBI on CICs. FAQs are RBI staff views; whereas Directions or Regulations are a part of subordinate law; however, in the consolidation exercise, a whole lot of FAQs and circulars became a part of the Directions.
Going by the intent of the NBFC classification and categorisation, the above-quoted provisions seem more relevant for registered CICs, implying that CICs once registered need not meet the PBC on an ongoing basis. CICs predominantly hold investments in group companies and therefore satisfy the 90–60 thresholds, but often do not derive any financial income from such investments. Group investments, being strategic in nature, are rarely disposed of, and the dividend income from such investments depends on the dividend/payout ratio, which may be quite low. In several cases, such entities continue to earn income, say, by way of royalty for a group brand name. Even the slightest of non-financial income will seem to breach the PBC criteria, which may challenge the continuation of registration of the CIC as an NBFC. In order to redress this, the provision under para 17(3) of the CIC Directions provides that CICs need not meet the PBC criteria on an ongoing basis.
What is the basis of this argument? The definition of a CIC comes from para 3, which says as follows: “These directions shall be applicable to every Core Investment Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘CICs’ and individually as a ‘CIC’), that is to say, a non-banking financial company carrying on the business of acquisition of shares and securities, and which satisfies the following conditions.” Para 17 (3) is a note to Para 17, which apparently deals with conditions of continued registration.
Given that CIC is a category of NBFC, it would be counter-intuitive to say that the regulatory requirement requires holding companies to go for registration as a CIC even if they do not meet the PBC for an NBFC. In fact, if an entity is not an NBFC because it fails the principality of its business, it would not even come under the statutory ambit of the RBI by virtue of section 45-IC.
Accordingly, without going by just the text of the regulations, in our view, considering the regulatory intent, the following could be inferred:
- If there are group holding companies which have intra group investments, but also have operating income from one or more sources, such that the operating income is more than finanical income, these companies are not NBFCs at all. If they are not NBFCs, they cannot be CICs irrespctive of the extent of investment/loans as a part of their asset base. As we say this, we emphaise that the operating income shoudl be substantive and should be indicating a strategic business intent, rather than a pure one-off or passive income.
- CICs are a type of NBFC.
- Holding companies will be classified as a CIC in case they first meet the 50-50 criteria for NBFC and thereafter the 90-60 criteria as well. The registration requirement may then be ascertained based on the asset size and access to public funds by the CIC.
- A CIC (registered or unregistered) need not meet the PBC criteria on an ongoing basis.
Other Resources:
Representation with respect to NBFC-related Regulatory Issues
/0 Comments/in Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI /by Staff– Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com
RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2026 – Key Changes
/0 Comments/in Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI /by Staff– Chirag Agarwal & Siddharth Pandey | finserv@vinodkothari.com
Background
The framework for Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (IOS) constitutes a cornerstone of the RBI’s customer protection and grievance redressal mechanism across the financial sector. With the objective of providing customers a single, unified and accessible platform for redressal of complaints against Regulated Entities, the RBI introduced the Integrated Ombudsman framework.
The RBI has now introduced the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2026 (“IOS 2026”), which supersedes the earlier Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021 (“IOS 2021”). The new Scheme shall come into force with effect from July 1, 2026.
Key Changes
The IOS 2026 seeks to refine and reinforce the existing mechanism by expanding the scope of coverage, strengthening the powers of the Ombudsman, tightening procedural timelines, enhancing disclosure and reporting. The table below highlights and analyses the key changes introduced under IOS 2026 as compared to the IOS 2021, to enable stakeholders to assess the regulatory and operational impact of the revised framework.
| Provision | IOS 2021 | IOS 2026 | Analysis / Impact |
| Definition of “Customer” & “Deficiency in Service” | The term “Customer” was not defined. Limited definition for ‘Deficiency in Service’, largely linked to users/applicants of financial services. | ‘Customer’ means a person who uses, or is an applicant for, a service provided by a Regulated Entity. (Para 3(1)(h)) ‘Deficiency in Service’ now applicable across all services provided by Regulated Entities and not just restricted to financial services. (Para 3(1)(i)) | Broadens the scope of protection by covering all services offered by Regulated Entities, not just financial services. |
| Definition of “Rejected Complaints” | Not expressly defined | New definition introduced – complaints closed under Clause 16 of the Scheme. (Para 3(1)(o)) | Clarificatory in nature; definition is not used elsewhere in the Scheme |
| Power to Implead Other Regulated Entities | No explicit power | Ombudsman empowered to make other Regulated Entities a party to the complaint if such Regulated Entity has, by an act, negligence, or omission, failed to comply with any directions, instructions, guidelines, or regulations issued by the RBI. (Para 8(6)) | Expands investigative and adjudicatory powers of the RBI Ombudsman |
| Annual Report on Scheme Functioning | The Ombudsman was required to submit an annual report to the Deputy Manager of the RBI; however, the RBI was not obligated to publish it. | It has now been made mandatory for the RBI to publish an annual report on the functioning and activities carried out under the Scheme. (Para 8(7)) | Enhances transparency and public accountability of the Ombudsman framework |
| Interim Advisory | No express provision | Ombudsman expressly empowered, if deemed necessary and based on the circumstances of the complaint, to issue an advisory to the RE at any stage to take such action as may lead to full or partial resolution and settlement of the complaint. (Para 14(6)) | Enables interim reliefs/directions and more effective complaint handling. This would help in resolving disputes by settlement at any stage. IOS permits advisories i.e., communications from the Ombudsman advising REs to take actions for full or partial complaint resolution. Advisories are non-binding and serve as a pre-award tool to facilitate quicker settlements. |
| Principal Nodal Officer (PNO) – Change Reporting | Reporting obligation not specified | Any change in appointment or contact details of PNO must be reported to CEPD, RBI (prior to change or immediately post-change) (Para 18(2)) | Additional intimation requirement for regulated entities |
| Compensation – Consequential Loss | Capped at ₹20 lakh | Enhanced to ₹30 lakh (Para 8(3)) | Increases the limit of potential financial risk for Regulated Entities |
| Compensation – Harassment & Mental Anguish | Consolatory damages capped at ₹1 lakh | Increased to ₹3 lakh (in addition to other compensation) (Para 8(3)) | Compensation limit tripled |
| Limit on Amount in Dispute | No monetary cap | No change – still no limit (Para 8(3)) | Ombudsman continues to have wide jurisdiction irrespective of dispute value |
| Timeline for Filing Complaint | 1 year from RE’s reply; or 1 year + 30 days if no reply from RE | Complaint must be filed within 90 days from the expiry of the RE’s response timeline (30 days) or last communication, whichever is later. (Para 10(1)(g)) | Considerably tightens timelines; this would mean the customers must act swiftly |
| Guidance on Complaint Filing | Dispersed across the Scheme | Consolidated guidance provided in Part A of the Annexure along with Complaint Form. (Annex) | The guidance merely reiterates the points from the scheme that relate to admissibility of a valid complaint, but this is useful for the complainant as he will be aware of the complaint filing requirements and shall not be required to be thorough with the scheme itself |
| Modes of Filing Complaint | Specified the options to file a complaint through portal, email, or courier at CRPC. | Explicitly specified the email-ID of CRPC, and the address at which the complaint shall be couriered. (Para 6(2)) | Specification of the details for filing complaint |
| Data Consent in Complaint Form | No explicit consent requirement | Explicit consent for use of personal data mandatory. (Annex) | Aligns complaint process with evolving data protection and privacy standards |
| Categorisation of Complaints in complaint form | Limited classification | Detailed categorisation of complainant type and nature of complaint. (Annex) | Enables better routing, analytics, and faster resolution |
| Maintainability Check in Complaint Form | No upfront maintainability warning | Explicit note stating non-maintainable scenarios (court pending, advocate filing, etc.). (Annex) | Reduces frivolous filings and early-stage rejections |
| Appellate Authority | Executive Director in charge of concerned RBI department | Executive Director in charge of Consumer Education and Protection Department (CEPD) explicitly designated. (Para 3(1)(a)) | Clarificatory in nature |
| Introduced system-based validation | No such provision | Complaints received via portal, will undergo a system-based validation/check and will be rejected at the outset for being non-maintainable complaints. For the complaints received via e-mail and physical mode, CRPC will assess their maintainability under the Scheme. (Para 12(1)) | This would enhance the “gatekeeping” responsibility of the CRPC, which should speed up the process for valid complaints by weeding out inadmissible ones. |
Actionables for REs:
- REs should review and align their internal grievance handling and escalation processes to ensure all service-related complaints are covered.
- REs shall provide prior intimation to the CEPD, RBI for any change in the appointment or contact details of the Principal Nodal Officer (PNO)
- REs shall take note of the enhanced compensation limits under the Scheme and accordingly reassess potential liabilities, update grievance redressal frameworks, and sensitize relevant teams to ensure compliance with revised thresholds.
- Para 18, as in the earlier Scheme, requires REs to display the salient features of the Scheme, a copy of the IOS 2026, and the updated contact details of the Principal Nodal Officer on their website and at their branches/places where the business is transacted.
Other Related Resources:
Lending to your own: RBI Amendment Directions on Loans to Related Parties
/0 Comments/in Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI, Related Party Transactions /by Staff-Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com
On January 5, 2026, the RBI issued the Amendment Directions on Lending to Related Parties by Regulated Entities. Pursuant to this, changes were introduced to Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Credit Risk Management) – Amendment Directions, 2026 (CRM Amendment Directions) and Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures) Directions, Amendment Directions, 2026. Previously, Draft Directions were also issued on the subject. Our write-up on the draft directions can be accessed here.
Highlights

Applicability and Effective Date
The amendments under CRM Directions shall apply to all NBFCs, including Housing Finance Companies (HFCs) with regard to lending by an NBFC to its ‘related party’ and any contract or arrangement entered into by an NBFC with a ‘related party’. However, Type 1 NBFCs and Core Investment Companies shall not be covered under the applicability.
These amendments shall come into force on 1 April 2026. NBFCs may, however, choose to implement the amendments in their entirety from an earlier date.
In addition to complying with the provisions of the Amendment Directions, listed NBFCs shall continue to adhere to the applicable requirements of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, as amended from time to time.
Grandfathering of existing arrangements: Existing RPTs that are not compliant with these amendments may continue until their original maturity. However, such loans, contracts, or credit limits shall not be renewed, reviewed, or extended upon expiry, even where the original agreement provides for renewal or review.
Any enhancement of limits sanctioned prior to 1st April 2026 shall be permitted only if they are fully compliant with these amendments.
Relevant Definitions
Related Party
| RPs under Amendment Directions | Whether covered in the Present Regulations |
| (A) Related Persons: These can be non-corporate | |
| a promoter, or a director, or a KMP of the NBFC or relatives of the said (natural) person | All other persons except the promoter was covered |
| Person holding 5% equity or 5% voting rights, singly or jointly, or relatives of the said (natural) person | No |
| Person having the power to nominate a director through agreement, or relatives of the said (natural) person | No |
| Person exercising control, either singly or jointly, or relatives of the said (natural) person | Yes |
| (B) Related Parties: These can be any person other than individual/HUF, and cover Entities where (A) | Covered Partially |
| is a partner, manager, KMP, director or a promoter | Promoter not covered |
| hold/s 10% of PUSC | Holds lower of (i)10% of PUSC and (ii)₹5 crore in PUSC |
| has single or joint control with another person | Yes |
| controls more than 20% of voting rights | No |
| has power to nominate director on the Board | No |
| are such on the advice direction, or instruction of which the entities are accustomed to act | No |
| is a guarantor/surety | Yes |
| is a trustee or an author or a beneficiary (where entity is a private trust) | No |
| Entities which are related to (A) as subsidiary, parent/holding company, associate or joint venture | Yes |
The definition of “Related Party” remains unchanged from that provided under the Draft Directions.
Further, a clarification have been added where an entity in which a related person has the power to nominate a director solely pursuant to a lending or financing arrangement shall not be regarded as a related party.
Related Person
Under the Draft directions, the definition of a “related person” included group entities. However, pursuant to the Amendment Directions, group entities have been expressly excluded from the scope of “related person.” The provisions are specific for lending to directors, KMPs and their related parties. In the case of lending to entities such as subsidiaries and associates, the NBFC must adhere to the concentration norms as prescribed under the CRM Directions.
Specified Employees
The definition of “Senior Officer” as provided under the erstwhile regulations (Para 4(1)(vii) of the Credit Risk Management Directions) has been omitted and, in its place, the concept of “Specified Employees” has been introduced. “Specified Employees” has been defined to mean all employees of an NBFC who are positioned up to two levels below the Board, along with any other employee specifically designated as such under the NBFC’s internal policy.
Under the erstwhile regulations, the term “Senior Officer” was given the same meaning as defined under Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Thus, the terms Senior Officer included the following:
- Members of the core management team,
- All members of management who are one level below the Executive Directors,
- Functional heads
Practically, this change implies that one additional hierarchical level would now need to be designated as “Specified Employees”. Further, the specific inclusions that earlier applied under the Companies Act and the LODR Regulations i.e., functional heads under the Companies Act and CS and CFO under the LODR will no longer be automatically covered, unless they fall within two levels below the Board or are specifically designated as such under the NBFC’s internal policy.
Meaning of “Lending”
‘Lending’ in the context of related party transactions would include funded as well as non-fund-based credit facilities to related parties. It may further be noted that investments in debt instruments of related parties are specifically included within the ambit of lending. Accordingly, the scope is not just restricted to loans and advances but includes all fund based and non-fund based exposures as well as investment exposures.
Principles to be followed while lending to a related party
While lending to related parties, the following principles and provisions are to be followed by NBFCs:
- Credit Policy
The credit policy of the NBFC must contain specific provisions on lending to RPs. Mandatory contents of such policy will include:
- Definition of RPs and Specified Employees
- Safeguards to address the risks emanating from lending to related parties
- Provisions relating to lending to ‘specified officers’ of the NBFC and their relatives
- Provisions related to a suitable whistleblower mechanism for employees to raise concerns over irregular and unethical loans to RPs. Any kind of quid pro quo arrangements should also be prohibited.
- Materiality Thresholds for sanctioning of the loans
- Interested parties to recuse themselves
- Limits for lending to RPs, including sub-limits for lending to a single related party and a group of related parties
- Monitoring mechanism for such loans to RPs. This would include the designation of a specified authority for monitoring as well as reporting to the Board/Board committee. Further, procedure in case of deviation from the policy must also be prescribed.
Earlier, the policy requirement was specifically applicable in case of base layer NBFCs, but now the same has been made applicable for all NBFCs.
- Board approved limits for lending to RPs
The CRM Amendment Directions also mandate prescribing board-approved limits for lending to RPs. Further, sub-limits will also have to be prescribed for lending to a single RP and a group of RPs. Here, a question may arise on what basis will the NBFC prescribe such limits? Such limits may be prescribed after considering the ticket size of the loans generally offered by the Company, to ensure the loans to RPs are aligned with the loan products for general customers. The limit may be specified as a percentage of the NOF of the NBFC, similar to the credit concentration limits.
- Materiality Thresholds
NBFCs may extend credit facilities to related parties in accordance with their Board-approved credit policy. Any such lending must be within the board-approved limit prescribed for lending to RPs (including a single RP and a group of RPs).
Further, under the Amendment Directions (Para 13G of the CRM Amendment Directions), RBI has now clearly laid down materiality thresholds for such lending to related parties, including those to directors, senior officers, and their relatives. Lending above the prescribed materiality threshold should be sanctioned by the Board/Board Committee of the NBFC. (other than the Audit Committee).
It may be noted that earlier, for middle and upper layer NBFCs, any loans aggregating to ₹ 5 Crore and above were to be sanctioned by the Board/Board Committee. The materiality thresholds prescribed under the Amendment Directions are based on the layer of the NBFC, as follows:
| Category of NBFCs | Materiality Threshold |
| Upper Layer and Top Layer | ₹10 crore |
| Middle Layer | ₹5 crore |
| Base Layer | ₹1 crore |
| Layer of the NBFC shall be based on the last audited balance sheet.For loans, materiality threshold shall apply at individual transaction level | |
Can the power to sanction loans be delegated to the Audit Committee?
The CRM Amendment Directions have defined the Committee on lending to related parties which will mean a committee of the Board of the NBFC entrusted with sanctioning of loans to related parties. NBFCs may also identify any existing Committee, other than the Audit Committee, for this purpose.
Further, para 13I provides that,
However, a NBFC at its discretion, may delegate the above powers of lending beyond the materiality threshold to a Committee of the Board (hereafter called Committee) other than the Audit Committee of the Board
Accordingly, on a reading of the above, it seems that the power to sanction loans cannot be provided to the Audit Committee of the Board.
- Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism
- NBFC shall maintain and periodically update the list of all related persons, related parties, and loans sanctioned to them. This will be in addition to the list of related parties of the NBFC, which comes from the Companies Act, 2013, LODR and Accounting Standards.
- The list shall be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure accuracy and compliance.
- Credit facilities sanctioned to specified employees and their relatives shall be reported to the Board annually.
- Any deviation from the lending policy on related parties, along with reasons, shall be reported to the Audit Committee or to the Board where no Audit Committee exists.
- Products/structures circumventing these Directions (reciprocal lending, quid pro quo) shall be treated as related party lending.
5. Quid Pro Quo Arrangements
The CRM amendment directions also provide that any arrangements which aim at circumventing the Amendment Directions will be treated as lending to RPs. Accordingly, any such arrangements involving reciprocal lending to related parties shall be subject to all the provisions of this direction.
- Refrain from participation
Para 13J requires that Directors, KMPs and specified employees must recuse themselves from any deliberations or decision-making on loan proposals, contracts or arrangements that involve themselves or their related parties. This obligation also applies to all subsequent decisions involving material changes to such loans, including one-time settlements, write-offs, waivers, enforcement of security and implementation of resolution plans, to ensure independence and avoid conflicts of interest.
Financial Statements Disclosures
Details of exposure to related parties as per these Directions shall be disclosed in the Notes To Accounts pursuant to para 21(9A) of the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures) Directions, 2025 in the following format:
| (Amt in ₹ Crore) | |||
| Sr. No | Particulars | Previous Year | Current Year |
| Loans to Related Parties | |||
| 1 | Aggregate value of loans sanctioned to related parties during the year | ||
| 2 | Aggregate value of outstanding loans to related parties as on 31st March | ||
| 3 | Aggregate value of outstanding loans to related parties as a proportion of total credit exposure as on 31st March | ||
| 4 | Aggregate value of outstanding loans to related parties which are categorized as: | ||
| (i) Special Mention Accounts as on 31st March | |||
| (ii) Non-Performing Assets as on 31st March | |||
| 5 | Amount of provisions held in respect of loans to related parties as on 31st March | ||
| Contracts and Arrangements involving Related Parties | |||
| 6 | Aggregate value of contracts and arrangements awarded to related parties during the year | ||
| 7 | Aggregate value of outstanding contracts and arrangements involving related parties as on 31st March | ||
Comparison at a Glance
| Parameters | Existing Guidelines | Amendment Directions |
| Applicability | NBFC-BL- only policy requirement was prescribedNBFC-ML and above – threshold, approval and reporting was applicable | NBFCs in all layers, except Type 1 and CICs |
| Materiality Threshold/ Threshold for seeking board approval | NBFCs-BL- As per the PolicyNBFCs-ML- Rs. 5 croreNBFCs-UL- Rs. 5 crore | NBFCs-BL- Rs. 1 croreNBFCs-ML- Rs. 5 croreNBFCs-UL- Rs. 10 crore. Lending beyond the MT requires board or board committee approval (other than AC). |
| Board approved limits for lending to RPs | No such limit was required to be prescribed | Policy shall specify aggregate limits for loans towards related parties. Within this aggregate limit, there shall be sub-limits for loans to a single relatedparty and a group of related parties.Lending beyond the board approved limit, requires ratification by the Board/AC. |
| Monitoring | Loans and Advances to Directors less than ₹5 crores shall be reported to the Board. Further, all loans and advances to senior officers shall be reported to the Board. | Para 13K: Maintain and periodically update list of related persons, related parties, and loans to them. Para 13L: Annually report credit facilities to specified employees and relatives to the Board. Para 13M: Quarterly or shorter internal audit reviews on adherence to related party guidelines. Para 13N: Report deviations and reasons to the Audit Committee or Board. Para 13O: Products/structures circumventing Directions (reciprocal lending, quid pro quo) shall be treated as related party lending. |
| Policy Requirement | Only for NBFC-BL. NBFCs were required to prescribe a threshold beyond which the loans shall be required to be reported to the Board | Applicable for all NBFCs. |
| Recusal by interested parties | Directors who are directly or indirectly concerned or interested in any proposal should disclose the nature of their interest to the Board when any such proposal is discussed | Interested parties, including specified employees to recuse themselves |
| Disclosure under FS | Related Party Disclosure were specified as per format prescribed under Para 21(9) of Financial Statement Disclosures Directions | In addition to the earlier requirement, another format has been prescribed under Para 21(9A) with respect to details of exposures to related parties |
| Power to sanction loans to RPs | For NBFCs-BL: Only reporting is required; no board approval For NBFCs-ML and above: Board approval required for loans above the threshold. | For all NBFCs:Loans above materiality threshold shall be sanctioned by Board or delegated Committee (not Audit Committee) Loans below the threshold shall be sanctioned by appropriate authority as defined under the Policy. |
Our Other Resources:
Banking group NBFCs: Need to map businesses to avoid overlaps with the parent banks
/0 Comments/in Banks, Capital Markets, Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI, Securitisation /by Staff– Vinod Kothari | finserv@vinodkothari.com
The new dispensation implemented from 5th December 2025 implies that lending business, obviously carried in the parent bank, needs to be allocated between the bank and the group entities so as to avoid overlaps. The bank will have to take its business allocation plan, at a group level, to its board, by 31st March 2026.
The RBI’s present move has certain global precedents. Singapore passed an anti-commingling rule applicable to banking groups way back in 2004, but has subsequently relaxed the rule by a provision referred to as section 23G of the Banking Regulations. However, the approach is not uniformly shared across jurisdictions.
We are of the view that as the decision works both at the bank as well as the NBFC/HFC level, the same has to be taken to the boards of the respective NBFCs/HFCs too.
Businesses which currently overlap include the following:
- Loans against properties
- Housing finance
- Loans against shares
- Trade finance
- Personal loans
- Digital lending
- Small business loans
- Gold loans
- Loans against vehicles – passenger and commercial, or loans against construction equipment
In our view, banks will have serious concerns in meeting their priority sector lending targets, unless they decide to keep priority sector lending business in the bank’s books. Priority sector lending is quite often much less profitable, and the NBFCs in the group are able to create such loans at much higher rates of return due to their delivery strengths or customer franchise. As to how the banks will be able to originate such loans departmentally, will remain a big question.
There are other implications of the above restrictions too:
- If a bank is engaged, for example, in MSME lending, but auto loans are done at the group entity, the bank cannot be a co-lender with its group entity, nor can it acquire auto loans originated by its group entity.
- Extending the same argument, if the banking group is carrying auto loan activity in its group NBFC, it cannot buy auto loans either by way of a direct assignment or co-lending, originated by other banks or other independent NBFCs. The reason for this is obvious – if the bank has decided to carry auto lending activity in its group entity, it should stay away from that exposure, even if originated by other entities.
- The decision to keep particular loan products with group entities – can it be stretched to the extent that bank will not have indirect exposure in such products, for example, by way of giving a loan to its group entity for on-lending for a product which the bank does not undertake departmentally? One of the reasons that may have prompted the Mohanty Group report in 2020 to segregate products between the bank and its group entities was contagion risk. If contagion is at the core of the present restriction, then that risk is still there even if the bank lends to a group entity for on-lending for a product. However, in our view, the present restriction is primarily aimed at avoiding regulatory arbitrages, and cannot be expected to require a completely independent financing of the loan products that a subsidiary finances, and not the bank.
- Therefore, in our view, a bank may not only on-lend to its group entities (of course, on the basis of an arm’s length lending approach), but it may also buy the asset-backed securities arising from such loan portfolios as sit with its group entities.
Factors to decide loan product allocation
In case of several non-lending products such as securities trading, demat services, etc., the approach may be easier. However, lending services constitute the bulk of any bank’s financial business, and group NBFCs and HFCs are also evidently engaged in lending. Hence, there may be a delicate decisioning by each of the boards on who does what. Note that this choice is not spasmodic – it is a strategic decision that will bind the entities for several years.
The factors based on which banks will have to decide on their business allocation may include:
- Delivery mechanisms – Mostly, branch and team strengths are sitting in group entities. Therefore, the loan products that entail last mile customer outreach, geographical access, etc are naturally housed in entities which possess those abilities.
- Technology strength: Some of the products are based on fintech or similar technology strength, which may be sitting with respective entities.
- Recovery mechanisms – Group entities are typically more nimble than banks. Hence, while banks may keep loans on their books, but they may engage group entities for recovery purposes.
- Priority sector requirements-: This will be a very important factor in deciding business allocation. Banks are mandated to invest 40% of their ANBC in qualifying priority sector loans – not NBFCs. Hence, for such loans as qualify as priority sector, the option may be to house the portfolios with the bank, or to invest in pass through certificates.
Securitised notes: whether investment in group entities?
Talking about pass through certificates, there is a complicated question as to whether the investment limits imposed by the 5th Dec. 2025 amendment on aggregate investments in group entities will include investment in pass through certificates arising out of pools originated by group entities. In our view, the answer is in the negative, as the investment is not originator, but in the asset pools. However, if the bank makes investment in the equity tranche or credit enhancing unrated tranches, the view may be different.
Conclusion
Banks are heading shortly in the last quarter of a year which is laden with strong headwinds. In this scenario, facing business allocation decisions, rather than business expansion or risk management, may be more challenging than it may seem to the regulators.
Other resources:
- Banks’ exposure to AIFs: Group-wide limits introduced
- Bank group NBFCs fall in Upper Layer without RBI identification
- Group-level regulation: RBI brings major regulatory restrictions on banks and group entities
- New NBFC Regulations: A ready reckoner guide
- New Commercial Bank Regulations: A ready reckoner guide
Bank group NBFCs fall in Upper Layer without RBI identification
/0 Comments/in Banks, Banks, Financial Services, NBFCs, RBI /by Staff– Dayita Kanodia | finserv@vinodkothari.com
RBI on December 5, 2025 issued RBI (Commercial Banks – Undertaking of Financial Services) (Amendment) Directions, 2025 (‘UFS Directions’) in terms of which NBFCs and HFCs, which are group entities of Banks and are therefore undertaking lending activities, will be required to comply with the following additional conditions:
- Follow the regulations as applicable in case of NBFC-UL (except the listing requirement)
- Adhere to certain stipulations as provided under RBI (Commercial Banks – Credit Risk Management) Directions, 2025 and RBI (Commercial Banks – Credit Facilities) Directions, 2025
The requirements become applicable from the date of notification itself that is December 5, 2025. Further, it may be noted that the applicability would be on fresh loans as well as renewals and not on existing loans. The following table gives an overview of the compliances that NBFCs/HFCs, which are a part of the banking group will be required to adhere to:
| Common Equity Tier 1 | RBI (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Prudential Norms on Capital Adequacy) Directions, 2025 | Entities shall be required to maintain Common Equity Tier 1 capital of at least 9% of Risk Weighted Assets. |
| Differential standard asset provisioning | RBI (Non-Banking Financial Companies – IncomeRecognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning) Directions, 2025 | Entities shall be required to hold differential provisioning towards different classes of standard assets. |
| Large Exposure Framework | RBI (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Concentration Risk Management) Directions, 2025 | NBFCs/HFCs which are group entities of banks would have to adhere to the Large Exposures Framework issued by RBI. |
| Internal Exposure Limits | In addition to the limits on internal SSE exposures, the Board of such bank-group NBFCs/HFCs shall determine internal exposure limits on other important sectors to which credit is extended. Further, an internal Board approved limit for exposure to the NBFC sector is also required to be put in place. | |
| Qualification of Board Members | RBI (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Governance)Directions, 2025 | NBFC in the banking group shall be required to undertake a review of its Board composition to ensure the same is competent to manage the affairs of the entity. The composition of the Board should ensure a mix of educational qualification and experience within the Board. Specific expertise of Board members will be a prerequisite depending on the type of business pursued by the NBFC. |
| Removal of Independent Director | The NBFCs belonging to a banking group shall be required to report to the supervisors in case any Independent Director is removed/ resigns before completion of his normal tenure. | |
| Restriction on granting a loan against the parent Bank’s shares | RBI (Commercial Banks – Credit Risk Management) Directions, 2025 | NBFCs/HFCs which are group entities of banks will not be able to grant a loan against the parent Bank’s shares. |
| Prohibition to grant loans to the directors/relatives of directors of the parent Bank | NBFCs/HFCs will not be able to grant loans to the directors or relatives of such directors of the parent bank. | |
| Loans against promoters’ contribution | RBI (Commercial Banks – Credit Facilities) Directions,2025 | Conditions w.r.t financing promoters’ contributions towards equity capital apply in terms of Para 166 of the Credit Facilities Directions. Such financing is permitted only to meet promoters’ contribution requirements in anticipation of raising resources, in accordance with the board-approved policy and treated as the bank’s investment in shares, thus, subject to the aggregate Capital Market Exposure (CME) of 40% of the bank’s net worth. |
| Prohibition on Loans for financing land acquisition | Group NBFCs shall not grant loans to private builders for acquisition and development of land. Further, in case of public agencies as borrowers, such loans can be sanctioned only by way of term loans, and the project shall be completed within a maximum of 3 years. Valuation of such land for collateral purpose shall be done at current market value only. | |
| Loan against securities, IPO and ESOP financing | Chapter XIII of the Credit Facilities Directions prescribes limits on the loans against financial assets, including for IPO and ESOP financing. Such restrictions shall also apply to Group NBFCs. The limits are proposed to be amended vide the Draft Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Capital Market Exposure) Directions, 2025. See our article on the same here. | |
| Undertaking Agency Business | Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Undertaking of Financial Services) Directions, 2025 | NBFCs/HFCs, which are group entities of Banks can only undertake agency business for financial products which a bank is permitted to undertake in terms of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. |
| Undertaking of the same form of business by more than one entity in the bank group | UFS Directions | There should only be one entity in a bank group undertaking a certain form of business unless there is proper rationale and justification for undertaking of such business by more than one entities. |
| Investment Restrictions | Restrictions on investments made by the banking group entities (at a group level) must be adhered to. |
Read our write-up on other amendments introduced for banks and their group entities here.
Other resources:



