How Changes in RBI Guidelines Impact Insolvency
Table of Contents
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) plays a pivotal role in shaping credit discipline, asset classification, and the resolution of stressed assets through its guidelines. Taking for instance, RBI’s Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets mandates early identification and reporting of default by classifying accounts into different categories based on overdue periods, within a 30-day review period commencing upon default. RBI’s revised guidelines instruct lenders to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) if a large account defaults before the completion of a specific period, thereby accelerating the resolution of stressed assets. The objective of this blog is to analyze how evolving RBI norms shape insolvency outcomes.
RBI’s Role in India’s Insolvency Ecosystem
The RBI is mandated to ensure financial stability by supervising and regulating banks and Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), which includes monitoring non-performing assets (NPAs) to maintain the health of the financial system. Its comprehensive regulatory framework complements the IBC by requiring early recognition and management of stressed assets. Further, the RBI guidelines establish clear timelines for the review and resolution of borrower defaults, mandate specific provisioning norms, and enforce stringent reporting requirements for financial institutions. These measures create a crucial early warning system, prompting timely resolution efforts and preventing further asset deterioration, thereby supporting the objectives of the IBC.
Read more : Fourth amendment to IBBI CIRP Regulations, 2016
Key RBI Guidelines Relevant to Insolvency
The RBI has established several frameworks that work along with the IBC to promote early recognition and resolution of stressed assets, often through out-of-court mechanisms before a case reaches the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT):
- The Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets, 2019 provides a harmonized, principle-based framework for lenders to address borrower defaults swiftly under a “normal scenario”, replacing previous, more complex schemes. The framework mandates that as soon as a default occurs, lenders must review the account within 30 days and formulate a resolution strategy, which can include out-of-court restructuring, with an inter-creditor agreement being mandatory. If a resolution plan is not implemented within a set timeframe, it facilitates the mandatory referral to the IBC process, thus acting as a direct feeder to the NCLT for large accounts.
- Asset Classification and Provisioning Norms ensure that banks maintain a true and fair view of their financial health by classifying based on their performance and making adequate provisions for potential losses. Stricter norms, including additional provisioning for delays in implementing resolution plans, disincentivise lenders from “evergreening” stressed accounts and encourage proactive resolution efforts before the situation deteriorates to a formal insolvency filing.
- Restructuring Guidelines for Micro, Small, or Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) provide a specific, limited window for MSMEs to restructure their debt and restore their viability, acknowledging their importance to the economy. These guidelines allow for the classification of restructured MSMEs accounts as “standard” subject to certain conditions, enabling a faster and less formal resolution outside the NCLT, which helps MSMEs continue as a “going concern” without the full blown IBC process.
- Large Exposure Framework (LEF) limits the concentration of risk in banks’ portfolios by capping exposures to a single counterparty or a group connected counterparties. By enforcing such limits, the LEF helps prevent systematic risk from the failure of a single large borrower. While not a direct pre-IBC process, it promotes more diversified and resilient lending practices, potentially reducing the number of massive, systematically important defaults that could otherwise overwhelm the insolvency system.
- Early Recognition and Reporting of NPAs enable the immediate identification of incipient stress in loan accounts by classifying them as Special Mention Accounts (SMA), thereby facilitating timely corrective action. This is a crucial pre-IBC step, as early warning signals prompt lenders to initiate resolution discussions and form a joint lenders form well before the account becomes an NPA and potentially enters the NCLT.
- Recovery and Securitization Directions under the Securities and Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 empowers the banks to enforce their security interest without court intervention in cases of default. The Act provides an avenue for recovery for secured creditors outside the IBC. However, once the IBC process is initiated and a moratorium is declared, the SARFAESI proceedings against the corporate debtor are typically situated, positioning the RBI guidelines for this Act as a parallel, but eventually superseded, pre-IBC recovery mechanism.
Effect on Admission of Insolvency Cases
The admission of insolvency cases, such as those applications admitted under section 7 of the IBC, has seen improved efficiency, with a notable increase in filings following the implementing of the IBC, which mandates a time-bound resolution process:
- Stricter NPA identification, particularly under the updated RBI Master Circular effective April 1, 2025 has led to earlier triggering of insolvency proceedings as loans are classified as NPAs upon overdue period exceeding 90 days, prompting faster creditor action.
- During economic downturns, such as the pandemic period, relaxations in enforcement and temporary exemptions led to a significant reduction in insolvency filings.
- Provisioning norms, which require immediate provisioning for fraud cases and dictate that restricted accounts become NPAs, influence banks’ incentives to pursue IBC over restructuring, as IBC offers a more structured recovery path.
- RBI’s timelines of stressed assets over about Rs. 2,000 crore, directly affect creditor strategy by compelling timely referral to NCLT if resolution fails, shaping the urgency and approach in insolvency initiation.
Impact on Committee of Creditors Decision-Making
- The Committee of Creditors (CoC) decision-making has been significantly influenced by revised provisioning rules, which push banks toward preferring time-bound resolution under the IBC to avoid prolonged asset deterioration and higher capital charges.
- Revised guidelines on stressed asset restructuring, such as Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) mechanism, sometimes create parallel pathways to IBC, leading to potential delays and conflicting outcomes depending on whether banks opt for out-of-court restructuring or in-court resolution.
- RBI guidelines can directly influence CoC voting and their decision by setting benchmarks for restructuring, prescribing additional provisions for delayed resolutions, and empowering banks to initiate CIRP proceedings, thereby shaping the strategic choice of creditors.
Influence on Resolution Plans and Valuation
- Stricter provisioning requirements may increase banks’ willingness to accept higher write-downs (haircuts) during the resolution process.
- The RBI criteria for “fit and proper” promoters and Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) buyers directly impact who is eligible to bid for distressed assets.
- Banks’ capacity for taking significant write-offs are shaped by existing capital adequacy guidelines.
- Shifts in the RBI’s repo rates and broader monetary policy changes indirectly influence the cost and availability of financing for potential resolution applicants.
Effects on Liquidation Outcomes
Revised norms for sale of NPAs to ARCs, including enhanced capital requirements and expanded roles for well-capitalised ARCs, are expected to alter recovery values by promoting more efficient and faster resolution proceedings. These changes, along with stricter governance and faster resolution timelines, may incentivise lends to pursue quicker liquidation over prolonged CIRP proceedings, particularly if the revised provisioning frameworks for asset in liquidation reduce the financial burden of early write-offs and improve the predictability of recovery outcomes. Further, RBI circulars emphasizing enhanced disclosure and direct enforcement mechanisms under the SARFAESI Act can significantly influence recovery rates by enabling banks to act swiftly on secured assets, often bypassing the need for IBC intervention and thereby the likelihood of higher recoveries outside the formal insolvency framework.
Interplay Between RBI Circulars and Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court in Dharani Sugars and Chemical Ltd. v. Union of India struck down the RBI’s February 12, 2018 circular on the resolution of stressed assets, ruling it ultra vires section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as it lacked prior authorisation from the Central Government for generic directives to initiate insolvency proceedings under the IBC. This decision underscored a critical interplay between regulatory powers and statutory frameworks, clarifying that while the RBI possess general powers under section 35A and 35AB to issue directions for resolving stressed assets, its authority under section 35AA to mandate IBC proceedings is structuring limited to specific defaults and requires explicitly government approval. The ruling marked a significant judicial shift, moving away from the traditional actions, thereby establishing that even expert regulators like the IBC must operate within the confines of their statutory powers and due process, thus balancing the need for efficient debt resolution with the protection of legal and constitutional safeguards.
Issues and Challenges
- Frequent regulatory changes may cause uncertainty for lenders and insolvency professionals.
- Conflicts between RBI-led restructuring and IBC-mandated processes persist, particularly in cases like IL&FS where the IBC framework was not initially applicable, leading to reliance on IBC principles through judicial interpretation.
- Inconsistent adoption of RBI norms by different classes of creditors, such as banks and NBFCs, creates disparities in resolution outcomes and undermines uniformity.
- Lack of coordination between IBBI, RBI, and financial institutions hampers the effectiveness of the insolvency regime.
Recommendations for Better Alignment
It is recommended to:
- Create an integrated stress-monitoring framework bridging RBI norms and IBC timelines.
- Introduce standardized guidelines for banks on IBC vs restructuring decision-making.
- Improve data-sharing between RBI, IBBI, and information utilities.
- Provide safer regulatory treatment for lenders approving higher haircuts under IBC.
Conclusion
The RBI’s guidelines exert significant and continuously evolving influence on India’s insolvency ecosystem. The central bank plays a critical role through various policies, such as the asset quality review framework and prudential norms for stressed assets, which often serve as teh initial triggers for CIRP. Hence, maintaining a close alignment between these RBI policies and the formal IBC proceedings is essential for upholding strong credit discipline, facilitating faster resolutions for NPAs, and ensuring overall financial stability. Furthermore, coordinated reforms that harmonise these two regulatory frameworks will lead to more predictable, efficient, and cohesive outcomes within the stressed asset market.
Recent Posts
