Principal Laws and Regulations Governing the Banking Sector
Regulators Responsible for Supervising Banks
Broadly, the types of licences can be split into two categories:
No company is allowed to carry on banking business in India unless it has obtained a licence from the RBI in accordance with the BRA and the RBI Guidelines for “on-tap” Licensing of Universal Banks in the Private Sector, 2016 (the “On-Tap Guidelines”). The On-Tap Guidelines prescribe eligibility requirements for the promoters of the applicants, shareholding requirements including minimum capitalisation requirements, etc.
Dealing in foreign exchange requires a separate licence as an authorised dealer which is issued by the RBI under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
Activities and Services Covered
A licensed banking company can also engage in certain other forms of business such as guarantee and indemnity business, factoring, equipment leasing and hire purchase, underwriting, insurance business with risk participation through a subsidiary/joint venture and securitisation, among others, in accordance with the terms of the BRA and the RBI’s Master Direction on Reserve Bank of India (Financial Services provided by Banks) Directions, 2016.
Licence Application Process
Some of the key requirements under the On-Tap Guidelines include the following.
Conditions for Authorisation
While considering a licence application, the RBI considers the following factors as per the BRA, among others:
The On-Tap Guidelines also specify that the bank should get its shares listed on the stock exchanges within six years of the commencement of business by the bank.
The application form is provided in the Banking Regulation (Companies) Rules, 1949.
Foreign Applicants
In addition to the requirements specified above, in the case of foreign entities the RBI must also be satisfied that:
The RBI has also issued additional guidelines and requirements for foreign banks seeking a licence to operate through a branch or a wholly owned subsidiary.
Timing and Basis of Decision
No specific timeline is prescribed for deciding on an application but, typically, the process can be expected to take about 18 months or longer.
Cost and Duration
There are no specific ongoing costs associated with a bank licence. Usually, bank licences issued by the RBI are not subject to an expiry date.
Requirements on shareholdings and change of control in banks in India are governed by the BRA and the RBI (Acquisition and Holding of Shares or Voting Rights in Banking Companies)Directions, 2023.
Key requirements/restrictions relating to acquisition or increasing control over a bank are the following.
The following limits apply on shareholding.
Foreign Banks (Operating Through a branch in India)
There are no specific requirement relating to change in shareholding of a foreign bank operating through a branch in India. However, this may be subject to a condition in its licence.
The corporate governance requirements for banks are primarily provided under:
These laws, regulations and guidelines mainly cover issues such as the following.
Key requirements applicable to registration and oversight of senior management of banks are under the BRA include the following.
The BRA prohibits employment of any person whose remuneration or part of whose remuneration takes the form of commission or a share in the profits of the company, or whose remuneration is, in the opinion of the RBI, excessive. Under the BRA, the remuneration of a chair, a managing or whole-time director, manager or CEO and any amendment thereto requires prior approval of the RBI.
RBI “Guidelines on Compensation of Whole Time Directors/Chief Executive Officers/Material Risk Takers and Control Function staff, 2019” (the “Compensation Guidelines”) also govern the remuneration of directors and bank executives. These apply to private and foreign banks operating in India.
The Compensation Guidelines have adopted the Financial Stability Board Principles for Sound Compensation. Key requirements under these guidelines are set out below.
In India, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) provides the legal framework for anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism related requirements. Under the PMLA, banks are required to follow customer identification procedures and monitor their transactions. The RBI has issued Know Your Customer Directions, 2016 (the “KYC Directions”), which lay down the AML/CFT requirements for banks.
Some of the key requirements relating to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing requirements under the KYC Directions are as follows.
The Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the RBI administers the Deposit Insurance Scheme. Deposits such as savings, fixed, current, recurring, at all commercial banks including branches of foreign banks functioning in India, local area banks and regional rural banks are insured by the DICGC. However, the following types of deposits are not insured:
Each depositor in a bank is insured up to a maximum of INR0.5 million for both principal and interest amount as on the date of liquidation/cancellation of bank՚s licence or the date on which the scheme of amalgamation/merger/reconstruction comes into force. The premium for the deposit insurance is borne entirely by the insured bank.
The RBI’s KYC Directions lay down the bank secrecy requirements in India. The key requirements under the KYC Directions relating to bank secrecy are as follows.
India adopted the Basel III Capital Regulations in 2013, which were fully implemented on 1 October 2021, as noted under RBI’s Master Circular on Basel III Capital Regulations dated 12 May 2023. The capital adequacy framework applies to banks at both a consolidated and a standalone level.
Banks are required to maintain a minimum Pillar 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (CRAR) (a ratio of the bank’s capital in relation to its risk-weighted assets) of 9% on an on-going basis (other than capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, etc).
Every bank needs to maintain, by way of a cash reserve, a sum equivalent to a certain percentage of the total of its Net Demand and Time Liabilities (NDTL) in India. The NDTL of a bank includes (i) liabilities towards the banking system net of assets with the banking system (as defined in the BRA and the RBI Act); and (ii) liabilities towards others in the form of demand and time deposits or borrowings or other miscellaneous items of liabilities. Currently, banks need to maintain a cash reserve ratio (CRR) of 4.50% of the bank’s total NDTL as on the last Friday of the second preceding fortnight. Every scheduled bank needs to maintain minimum CRR of not less than 90% of the required CRR on all days during the reporting fortnight, in such a manner that the average of CRR maintained daily shall not be less than the CRR prescribed by the RBI.
Every scheduled commercial is required to maintain assets (such as unencumbered government securities, cash and gold) the value of which shall not, at the close of business on any day, be less than 18% of their total net demand and time liabilities in India as on the last Friday of the second preceding fortnight in accordance with the method of valuation specified by RBI from time to time.
Banks are also required to maintain a liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) of 100%, which requires banks to maintain High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLAs) to meet 30 days net outgo under stressed conditions.
The minimum leverage ratio for domestic systemically important banks is 4% and 3.5% for other banks.
Regulatory Framework for Resolution of Insolvency of Banks
There is no specialised resolution regime for insolvency of financial firms in India. The BRA lays down the following modes of resolution for failing banks.
Yes Bank Limited’s scheme of reconstruction in 2020 provides an example of resolution of a bank through a draft RBI scheme of reconstruction under Section 45 of BRA.
The RBI had also introduced a “Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) Framework for Scheduled Commercial Banks”, which is governed by its notification dated 2 November 2021, with the objective of enabling supervisory intervention at appropriate time and requiring the bank to initiate and implement remedial measures in a timely manner, so as to restore its financial health. The corrective action taken may include restriction on dividend distribution/remittance of profits, promoters to bring in capital, restriction on branch expansion, restrictions on capital expenditure, other than for technological upgradation within board approved limits, special supervisory actions, strategy related, governance related, capital related, credit risk-related, market risk-related, HR-related, profitability-related, operations/business-related or any other specific action that the RBI may deem fit considering the specific circumstances of a bank.
Importantly, in November 2019, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and Liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019 (the “FSP Rules”) were notified under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). These rules expanded the gamut of IBC from corporate debtors to insolvency and liquidation of financial service providers. Currently, the FSP Rules are applicable to systemically important non-banking finance companies having an asset size of INR5 billion or more.
Key upcoming regulatory developments that may be introduced in the near future and which may have an impact on banks in India are as follows.
The above proposals are currently in the consultation stage (ie, public comments have been sought on these proposals) and are expected to be released soon.
In April 2023, the RBI released a framework for the acceptance of green deposits applicable to banks with the objective of encouraging banks to offer green deposits to customers and help increase credit flow to green projects.
Some of the key features of the green deposit framework include the following.
AZB House
Peninsula Corporate Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel
Mumbai 400 013
India
+ 91 22 4072 9999
+ 91 22 6639 6888
aditee.dash@azbpartners.com www.azbpartners.comIntroduction
The last year witnessed landmark judgments which shed light on critical issues relating to the remedies available to banks for recovery of their dues, including by invocation of pledge over shares. The orders examined various issues, such as:
These orders were particularly topical because a pledge of dematerialised shares has long since emerged as the “easiest” form of security to create and enforce. Such a pledge may be created by filing a form with the depository with which the shares are held. Enforcement of such a pledge would require the pledgee to file a pledge invocation form with the depository through its depository participant. The pledged shares would then automatically be transferred to the depository account of the pledgee and could be sold to a third party for value.
Given that enforcement of other forms of security can result in some delay because of reliance on courts or other judicial/administrative authorities and that it is not uncommon for large undertakings to be housed in “special purpose vehicles” – ie, standalone companies which can be sold as whole to transfer the undertaking, a pledge of the shares of the special purpose vehicle has been seen as an efficient form of security for banks.
This article provides a broad overview of three recent landmark orders on these issues:
Supreme Court 2022 Order in PTC India Financial Services Limited v Venkateswarlu Kari
Background
Relevant provisions under ICA, 1872 and the DA, 1996/DR, 1996
Issues and ruling
The main issue before the court was whether the provisions of the DA, 1996 and DR, 1996 have the effect of overriding the provisions relating to the contract of pledge under the ICA, 1872 (ie, upon invocation of a pledge over dematerialised shares, the shares are immediately transferred to the pledgee as a “beneficial owner” in accordance with the provisions of the DA, 1996 and DR, 1996, as opposed to physical shares where the ownership of shares is only transferred after an actual sale in accordance with Section 176 of the ICA, 1872).
The court ruled as follows.
Though this case lends certainty to the treatment of claims filed by pledgees in an insolvency process and their status as “beneficial owners”, it still leaves some issues unaddressed. For instance, it is not clear what constitutes a reasonable period for a pledgee which has invoked shares to not sell them for realisation of its outstanding amounts. If a pledgee is permitted to retain shares invoked under a pledge indefinitely, it may lead to an inequitable result where the pledgee has made recoveries under the insolvency process and continues to retain the ability to double dip in excess of its outstanding dues by selling the shares at an opportune time. This fear is compounded in cases where the insolvent entity is liquidated and no person survives with the legal right to recover the excess pay out.
Subsequent cases before the Bombay High Court, further built upon the position laid down in the PTC case, specifically in relation to whether a lender can exercise voting rights over pledged shares once it becomes the beneficial owner of the shares upon invocation of the pledge.
Bombay High Court 2022 Order in World Crest Advisors LLP v Catalyst Trusteeship Limited (“2022 HC Order”)
Background
The case arose from an appeal against an order of a single judge of the Bombay High Court, which denied the ad-interim relief being sought by World Crest to restrain Catalyst and YBL from participating or exercising any voting rights in the extraordinary general meeting of Dish TV.
Issues and ruling
The main issue before the court was whether Catalyst, as a beneficial owner of the pledged shares, was entitled to exercise rights associated with the shares such as voting rights over the shares, or the right to further transfer them (including the associate rights, such as the right to vote at a meeting of Dish TV) to YBL, or whether it merely holds the shares in its name till such time that the pledgor either redeems the pledge (by tendering the value of debt) or the shares are sold to a third party after giving reasonable notice to the pledgor. The pledgor argued that transfer of the shares to YBL amounted to a sale to itself, which is not permitted according to the PTC India ruling, and the pledgee does not have general property rights such as the right to vote over the shares. However, given that the order arose from an appeal against an ad-interim order, the bench was only required to look at the limited question of whether the view of the single judge was plausible.
The court dismissed the appeal against the order of the single judge and observed the following.
Importantly, the bench noted that they were not required to provide any final pronouncement of law, as this was not their task in the appeal and held that the single judge had correctly refused to exercise the discretion vested in him while denying the ad-interim relief. The 2022 HC Order was also appealed before the Supreme Court. In an order dated 12 September 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the 2022 HC Order but clarified that the observations in the order should be confined to the issue as to whether the single judge was justified in declining to exercise the discretion in an application for the grant of ad interim relief.
Bombay High Court 2023 order in World Crest Advisors LLP v Catalyst Trusteeship Limited
Background
Issues and ruling
Similar to the 2022 HC Order, one of the key issues before the court was whether the lenders and their assignees (ie, JCF in this case), upon invocation of the pledge, can exercise voting rights in respect of the pledged shares. Therefore, this order considered the PTC ruling and the 2022 HC Order, to further consider whether assignees can exercise voting rights in relation to the pledged shares.
The court denied the interim relief being sought by World Crest and noted the following on a prima facie basis.
Key Takeaways
These recent court orders have brought much needed clarity on the rights of pledgees over pledged shares and the interplay between the DA, 1996/DR 1996 and the ICA, 1872. Some of the key takeaways from these orders include the following.
AZB House
Peninsula Corporate Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel
Mumbai 400 013
India
+91 22 4072 9999
+91 22 66396888
aditee.dash@azbpartners.com www.azbpartners.com