Lenders Law

1. Introduction The RBI has, through its April 2026 draft directions , initiated a fundamental recalibration of the regulatory framework governing NBFCs. For NBFCs, this is not merely a consolidation of legacy circulars. It represents a transition toward a supervision-led regulatory architecture , with direct implications for governance, credit strategy, outsourcing models, and regulatory exposure. This blog examines key elements emerging from select draft directions and their implications for NBFCs, fintechs, and regulated entities. 2. Compliance Function: Institutionalizing Control at the Core of NBFC Operations The Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Compliance Function) Directions, 2026 introduce: Annual Compliance Risk Assessment:  Senior management is required to conduct a formal, enterprise-wide compliance risk assessment and implement a mitigation plan. Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) Framework: Mandatory appointment of a CCO (including exter...

India’s lending regulation is founded on a deliberate legal distinction:  the law regulates the “business of lending”, not every instance of lending . Accordingly: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulates lending by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) . State Governments regulate moneylenders under local Money Lending Acts. Yet, a significant and increasingly common practice now sits between these two regimes: Loans are advanced not by the NBFC, but by an individual promoter or by other group entities in which the promoter has a stake—often to borrowers who originally approached the NBFC itself. Such lending falls outside RBI regulation and outside State moneylender laws , creating a regulatory grey zone. Why RBI Regulation Does Not Extend to Individuals and Certain Group Entities? RBI’s powers under the RBI Act, 1934 extend only to entities carrying on the business of a non-banking financial institution . The 50–50 Test for NBFCs- An entity qualifies as an NBFC on...

Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates: “ The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract . Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India (2021, SC) – A guarantor’s liability arises the moment the principal borrower commits default. SBI v. Athena Energy Ventures (2020, NCLAT) – A creditor can proceed simultaneously against the corporate debtor and guarantor. Thus, it was understood that once the principal borrower has defaulted, and an IBC petition is being filed for the principal borrower, relevant steps may also be taken against the guarantor for initiation of the guarantor's insolvency proceedings simultaneously.  The Turning Point — SBI v. Deepak Kumar Singhania (2025, NCLAT) In February 2025, the NCLAT in State Bank of India v. Deepak Kumar Singhania changed the ground reality. What Happened SBI had lent to LML Ltd. , which defaulted and went into liquidation. ...

  The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“ IBC ”) created the framework of Information Utilities (IUs) to serve as authenticated repositories of financial information. A record of default from an IU is treated as conclusive evidence under Section 215 of the Code. A recurring issue for creditors is: Should the default be filed with an IU before sending a demand notice, or only before filing an insolvency application? Statutory Position Section 215(2) IBC provides that financial creditors shall submit information of default to an IU. Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016  (" Application to AA Rules ") requires that an application be accompanied by a record of default from an IU “wherever available”. Further, Regulation 20(1A) of the IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017 , as inserted by Notification No. IBBI/2022-23/GN/REG085 dated 14 June 2022, expressly provides that:  “Before filing an applicatio...

1) The NCLAT ruled on several cases related to IBC in July-August 2021, providing clarifications on key issues.  2) In one case, the NCLAT allowed the withdrawal of CIRP proceedings after full payment to operational creditors, noting that mere claims do not constitute default before the CoC is constituted.  3) In another case, the NCLAT held that bank guarantees are the responsibility of banks to release funds, minus amounts provided by CDs, as the assets of sureties are separate from CDs. 4) The NCLAT dismissed several intervenor applications filed prior to CoC constitution, noting the objective of IBC is revival, not just recovery.