Ans: No, the entity cannot report the information as per the account closing period, in case it is different from March closing. Information should be reported for the reference period only, i.e., previous March and latest March, based on the entity’s internal assessment.

The primary regulatory objective is to enable multiple avenues to lenders to recover the money in default without much delay. Apart from the time value loss, inordinate delays result in asset value deterioration which hampers ultimate recoveries. Compromise settlement is recognized as a valid resolution mechanism under the Prudential Framework on Resolution of Stressed Assets dated June 7, 2019. The imperatives for lenders are no different when it comes to recovery from borrowers classified as fraud or wilful defaulter. Continuing such exposures on the balance sheets of the lenders without resolution due to legal proceedings would lock lenders’ funds in an unproductive asset, which would not be a desirable position. As long as larger policy concerns are suitably addressed and the costs of malafide actions are made to be borne by the perpetrators, early recoveries by lenders should be a preferred option, subject to safeguards. Further, continuation of criminal proceedings underway or to be initiated against the borrowers classified as fraud or wilful defaulter, would ensure that perpetrators of any malafide action do not go scot-free.

No. After March 15, 2024, you will not be able to receive any such credits into your account with Paytm Payments Bank. It is suggested that you make alternative arrangements with another bank before March 15, 2024 to avoid inconvenience.

OMOs are the market operations conducted by the RBI by way of sale/ purchase of G-Secs to/ from the market with an objective to adjust the rupee liquidity conditions in the market on a durable basis. When the RBI feels that there is excess liquidity in the market, it resorts to sale of securities thereby sucking out the rupee liquidity. Similarly, when the liquidity conditions are tight, RBI may buy securities from the market, thereby releasing liquidity into the market.

5 (b) What is meant by repurchase (buyback) of G-Secs?

Repurchase (buyback) of G-Secs is a process whereby the Government of India and State Governments buy back their existing securities, by redeeming them prematurely, from the holders. The objectives of buyback can be reduction of cost (by buying back high coupon securities), reduction in the number of outstanding securities and improving liquidity in the G-Secs market (by buying back illiquid securities) and infusion of liquidity in the system. The repurchase by the Government of India is also undertaken for effective cash management by utilising the surplus cash balances. For e.g. Repurchase of four securities (7.49 GS 2017 worth ₹1385 cr, 8.07 GS 2017 worth ₹50 cr, 7.99 GS 2017 worth ₹1401.417 cr and 7.46 GS 2017 worth ₹125 cr) was done through reverse auction on March 17, 2017. State Governments can also buy-back their high coupon (high cost debt) bearing securities to reduce their interest outflows in the times when interest rates show a falling trend. States can also retire their high cost debt pre-maturely in order to fulfill some of the conditions put by international lenders like Asian Development Bank, World Bank etc. to grant them low cost loans. For e.g. Repurchase of seven securities of Government of Maharashtra was done through reverse auction on March 29, 2017. RBI vide DBR.No.BP.BC.46/21.04.141/2018-19 dated June 10, 2019 notified that apart from transactions that are already exempted from inclusion in the 5 per cent cap, it has been decided that repurchase of State Development Loans (SDLs) by the concerned state government shall also be exempted. Governments make provisions in their budget for buying back of existing securities. Buyback can be done through an auction process (generally if amount is large) or through the secondary market route, i.e. NDS-OM (if amount is not large).

A ‘company’ desirous of commencing the business of non-banking financial institution as defined under Section 45 I(a) of the RBI Act, 1934 should comply with the following:

i. It should be a company incorporated under Section 3 of the companies Act, 1956 or corresponding Section under the Companies Act, 2013;

ii. It should have a minimum net owned fund of ₹10 crore. (The minimum net owned fund requirements for specialized NBFCs are NBFC-Infrastructure Finance Company (NBFC-IFC) – ₹300 crore; Infrastructure Debt Fund – NBFC (IDF-NBFC) – ₹300 crore; Mortgage Guarantee Company (MGC) – ₹100 crore; Housing Finance Company (HFC) – ₹20 crore, Standalone Primary Dealers (SPDs) which undertake only the core activities – ₹150 crore and SPDs which also undertake non-core activities – ₹250 crore; NBFC-AA – ₹2 crore; and NBFC-P2P – ₹2 crore).

Ans: Yes, CICs may be required to issue guarantees or take on other contingent liabilities on behalf of their group entities. Guarantees per se do not fall under the definition of public funds. However, it is possible that CICs which do not accept public funds take recourse to public funds if and when the guarantee devolves. Hence, before doing so, CICs must ensure that they can meet the obligation there under, as and when they arise. In particular, CICs which are exempt from registration requirement must be in a position to do so without recourse to public funds in the event the liability devolves. If unregistered CICs with asset size above ₹ 100 crore access public funds without obtaining a Certificate of Registration (CoR) from RBI, they will be seen as violating Master Direction DoR(NBFC).PD.003/03.10.119/2016-17 dated August 25, 2016.