TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y RBI before the Central Government as required and mandated under sub section 7 of Section 45 of the Act of 1949. Central Government thereafter sanctioned the scheme sans clause of writing down AT-1 bonds. The final scheme sanctioned by the Central Government did not contain the clause or provision for writing down AT-1 bonds. Section 45(7) further provides that the scheme sanctioned by the Central Government shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may specify. Proviso to sub section 7 of section 45 of Act of 1949 empowers the Central Government to specify different dates for different provisions of the scheme. In the final scheme, March 13, 2020 is the date prescribed of coming into force the scheme, the same would mean that the Bank stood reconstituted on March 13, 2020. Only because the shares were to be allotted to SBI within two working days of the final scheme being notified, would not extend the date from which the scheme came into force nor it would extend the appointed date or the date the Bank is reconstituted. Yes Bank stands reconstituted on March 13, 2020. Under the Scheme, Moratorium period was extended by three days and the Administrato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on Basel III Norms. Clause 57 also suggests that the writing off or conversion to shares would be in accordance with these rules. In view of that, Writ Petition would be tenable before this court. The impugned letter dated March 14, 2020 and decision to write off Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) bonds deserve to be set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. Necessary consequences shall follow. - WRIT PETITION NO.785 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1069 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.189 OF 2022,WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1518 OF 2022,WRIT PETITION NO.100 OF 2021, WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1000 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2023 - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ S.M.MODAK, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO.785 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1069 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.189 OF 2022,WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1518 OF 2022,WRIT PETITION NO.100 OF 2021, WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1000 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4045 OF 2022 WITH IN PERSON APPLICATION (L) NO.4939 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1001 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4046 OF 2022 WITH IN PERSON APPLICATION (L) NO.4946 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.6589 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.535 OF 2021 W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Naushad Engineer a/w. Mr. Kunal Parekh i/b. Dua Associates AOR for Respondent no.11 in WPL/6589/2021. Mr. Kunal Parekh i/b. Dua Assocites AOR for Respondent no.15 in WPL/6589/2021. Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Mr. Shourya Tanay, Mr. Harshvardhan Nankani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Respondent no.3 (SEBI) in WP/6589/2021. Ms. Kanksha Vyas i/b. Juris Link for Respondent no.12 in IA/535/2021 in WP/6589/2021. Mr. D.P.Singh a/w. Mr. Aditya Thakkar for Respondent no.1 UOI in WP/785/2021. Mr. Anubhav Ghosh a/w. Mr. Pranav Kamdar i/b. TRILEGAL for Respondent no.5. in WP/785/2021 for Respondent nos.7 16 in WPL/6589/2021, WPL/849/2020. Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Harshvardhan Melanta, Mr. Shreyas Pandlai i/b. M/s. K.Ashar Co. For Respondent no.6. in WPL/6589/2021. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Mr. Vishesh Malviya, Ms. Nikita Mishra, Kr. Kyrus Modi, Mr. Aman Sadiwala i/b M/s. Rashmikant Partners, for Respondents Nos. 4 in WP/3324/2021, Respondent no.3 in WPL/1001/2020, for Respondent no.3 and 4 in WP/220/2021 for Respondent no.3. in WPL/1000/2020 for Respondent no.4 in IA/189/2022 in WPL/1069/2022. Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w Mr. Rohan Dak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aspi Chinnoy for the respondent Administrator and the respondent Yes Bank, Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam for the respondent Reserve Bank of India. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted against the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India has statutory force. The Reserve Bank of India under section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Act of 1949) is empowered to issue directions as it may deem fit and the banking companies shall be bound to comply with such directions. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Piyush Bokaria and others v. Reserve Bank of India and others (2020) SCC Online Mad 2693. Party in person relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Velankani Information Systems vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in Writ Petition No.6775 of 2020 and also the Division Bench judgment in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Rekha Rao in Writ Appeal No.8541 of 1996. 7. According to the party in person, the write down of AT-1 bonds has affected the legal rights of a class of citizens and thus is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is also further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eserve Bank of India. The appointment of the Administrator is under notification in the official gazette by the Reserve Bank of India and Administrator s salary and allowances are decided by the Reserve Bank of India. 10. As per Section 35 r/w Section 45 of the Act of 1949, all the actions taken by the Yes Bank after the declaration of the moratorium on March 5, 2020 is an act in its reconstructed capacity, which is of a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others (2002) 5 SCC 111 to submit that any authority in which there is deep and pervasive functional, administrative and financial control of the Central Government, it shall be within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is further contended by them that as the petition is directed against the Sectoral Regulators including the Reserve Bank of India and SEBI which are both statutory bodies that failed to perform their statutory duties, violating the petitioner s fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21. 11. The party in persons contends that the impugned dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act of 1949 and it comprehensively deals with a topic, then it will rule out any contrary provision found elsewhere and express provision of the Scheme must be given effect to. The Draft Scheme of Reconstruction is to be placed before the Central Government for its sanction and the Central Government is entitled to make such modifications as it may consider necessary to the proposed scheme. And, it is this scheme as sanctioned by the Central Government which then comes into force. By way of the final scheme, the Central government was pleased to delete the provision for writing-down of the said AT-1 Bonds and instead provided to save and keep them. Under the scheme of 45, no such decision can be taken without due authorization from the Central Government. 16. By virtue of Section 45(8) of the Act of 1949, the date from the coming into operation of the Final scheme, the scheme or such provisions as may be specified by the Central Government is to become binding on all the stakeholders: the banking company as also on all members, depositors, other creditors of the banking company, including the Administrator who acts in place of the suspended Board of Directors. By virtue of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... code by itself. Further, any reduction in the interest of creditors has to be mentioned in the Final Scheme under Section 45 of the Act of 1949. If the scheme is silent on such reduction then the inevitable conclusion is that the write down has not happened. The party in person relies on the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Chairman, Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. M.S. Jasra and Ors. 1992 AIR 1100 wherein it is held that it is not necessary that all clauses of section 45(5) of the Act of 1949 may be incorporated in the scheme unless the scheme specifically includes such a manner. Section 45(11) of the Act of 1949 mandates that the copies of the scheme shall be laid before both the houses of Parliament. This demonstrates the power and sanctity of the scheme prepared under section 45 of the Act of 1949. Any reduction of creditor s interest cannot be circumvented by doing it outside the scheme and such an act would be void ab initio. 20. It is submitted that the administrator is not competent to take such a decision as the Administrator does not enjoy the powers of the Reserve Bank of India nor is he empowered to act on behalf of the RBI. The administrator is bound t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under Clause 2.15, only RBI can write-down. The purported exercise based contractual documents by the Administrator in writing down the AT-1 bonds post reconstitution of a bank under section 45 can be undertaken under contractual documents (assuming such a right survives) only by following the procedure prescribed under Clause 2.3 to 2.9 and not by recourse to legal fiction under Clause 2.15. So if the bank was to exercise its contractual rights, the Master Circular provides for sufficient safeguards as contained in Clause 2.5 (certified from statutory auditors and legal opinion), Clause 2.6 (extent of write-down) and Clause 2.9 (restriction on further obligation/booking assets after write-down). These safeguards are introduced to ensure that the bank does not exceed its contractual rights. 24. They further submit that upon passing of the scheme of reconstruction in accordance with the section 45 of the Act of 1949 and the provisions of Clause 2.15 of the Master Circular and Clause 57 of the Information memorandum, the banking company was deemed to have been reconstructed and revived. If this is not accepted, then the entire purpose of Clause 2.15 and Clause 57 would be frustrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principles of natural justice were not followed when the impugned decision was passed. Under section 45(6) of the Act of 1949 which lays down the procedure by which the RBI may prepare a scheme of reconstruction which invites suggestions and objections inter alia from the creditors of the banking company in response to the proposed scheme. If the Administrator was entitled to write down the AT-1 Bonds, then it was incumbent upon the administrator to comply with 45(6) of the Act of 1949 and give an opportunity to make representations. The petitioners relied on the case of State Bank of Patiala Ors v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 which held that the principles of natural justice are implicit in administrative actions and that a failure to comply with a substantive provision to provide an opportunity/hearing results in the actions taken by the authority becoming void. 30. The petitioners further submit that the decision was disproportionate, unreasonable, arbitrary and without assigning any reasons. The petitioner relied on the judgment of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC 353 to explain that the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intangibles like copyrights and other intellectual property rights and embraces every possible interest recognized by law. The AT-1 bonds constitute property of the Petitioner, which cannot be deprived save by accordance with law. It cannot be said that section 45 of the Act of 1949 or Clause 2.15 of the Master Circular or Regulation 51 of the SEBI Regulations, 2015 furnish any specific authority of law in favour of the Administrator entitling him to make a decision to write-down the AT-1 Bonds. 32. The learned advocates for the petitioners contend that the sale of AT-1 Bonds to the petitioner was itself illegal. They rely on clause 8 of the Information Memorandum stipulating the ineligibility clause which stipulates that resident individual investors, HUFs and foreign nationals are such classes of investors that are ineligible to participate in the purchase of these AT-1 Bonds. Despite these the Yes Bank had sold these to the petitioners, most of whom were pre-existing Fixed Deposit holders in the bank. Clause 1.22 of Annexure 4 of the Master Circular provides that the banks shall not use its Fixed Deposit rate as a benchmark to advertise or sell such instruments. But, Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sector and is not established under any statute, nor is it engaged in or performing any public duty and/or statutory function. Therefore, it does not constitute a State under Article 12. The actions taken by the Yes Bank are in larger public interest which is a matter of commercial expertise and policy. The AT-1 bonds were issued in pursuance to the contract executed between the Yes Bank and the Axis Bank Ltd. These are governed by the terms and conditions of the Information Memorandum (December 22, 2016) and (October 17, 2017). So also the Debenture Trust Deed (March 15, 2017) and (December 28, 2017). It is further contended by them that though the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India has statutory force, the petitioner has not challenged the Information Memorandums or the Debenture Trust Deeds or the Master Circular which regulates the write off of the AT-1 bonds. Any challenge to the write off without any challenge to these is not legally tenable. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the position is not altered by the appointment of the Administrator under section 36 ACA who merely substituted the Board of Directors until a new b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of the provision to fully write off of the AT-1 bonds in the final scheme does not imply that such provision has not been accepted in the final scheme. The power to write off is contractually governed between the debenture holders and Respondent no.4. Additionally the same is also provided for in the Master Circular which continues to apply. As the PONV trigger was triggered as per Clause 2.15, the Central Government did not consider it necessary to include regulations which exist already. 39. The learned advocate for the respondent, the Administrator and the Yes Bank contend that as the final scheme stipulated that all contracts shall be effective to the extent and in the same manner as they were before the Scheme commenced and all deposits and liabilities of the reconstituted bank shall continue in the same manner and with the same terms and conditions, completely unaffected by the scheme. Pursuant to this, under the clauses 55 and 57 in the Information Memorandums enabled Respondent no.4 to write down the AT-1 bonds in the event the Bank was reconstituted by the authorities u/s 45. Therefore, Respondent no.4 was fully entitled under these contractual provisions to write ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t allowed in full and free play and is bogged down with the procedure contemplated in other situations, the entire purpose of having this clause would be defeated and public interest would suffer since the entire procedure would take time and in the meantime moratorium and restriction imposed for and in respect of the bank concerned would continue and so would cause prejudice to the public depositors. The purpose of the deeming fiction would be defeated, if the procedure as contemplated under clause 3 is to be repeated for determining non-viability of the bank. Once clause 2.15 is triggered, the bank is deemed non-viable. 44. The learned advocates for the respondent, the Reserve Bank of India submit that in case of the Yes Bank, PONV did not trigger as per Clause 3.1 of the Master Circular. However, upon the decision to reconstitute Respondent no.4 u/s 45 of the Act of 1949, Respondent no.4 was deemed to be non-viable or approaching non-viability. Accordingly, this triggered the conditions of Clause 2.15 of Annexure 16 under which AT-1 Bonds have been written down. Reading of the Clause 2.15 makes it evident that both the triggers were triggered. Since section 45 of the Act of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Information Memorandum so as to ensure that the Bank continued as a viable/stable going concern. The bank took advice from external legal counsels to write down the AT-1 bonds of Rs. 8415 crores as the contractual terms of the relevant Information Memorandum governing the said issue permitted the Bank to do so on activation of the pre-specified trigger and PONV. 48. They further submit that the Clause 57 of the Information Memorandum (October 17, 2017) enables the AT-1 bonds to be written down before reconstruction in accordance with these rules which means before the reconstitution is effected/implemented. This is also clear from the terms of the Reconstitution scheme which required the State Bank/other investor banks to be allotted equity shares within 2 working days following the commencement of the scheme and continued the Moratorium till the third working day from the commencement of the scheme. Thus, it can be inferred that according to the interpretation of the petitioner, the trigger for the writing off is the reconstitution of the bank by the authorities can never precede the notification of the reconstitution scheme. Clause 56 of the Information Memorandum provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to convert the bonds into equity. 51. The learned advocates for the respondents further contend that the allegations regarding mis-selling of AT-1 bonds are incorrect and disputed questions of fact and cannot be determined by the High Court whilst exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the Information memorandums, these AT-1 bonds are perpetual and there is provision for redemption by the bondholders. As far as the Order of SEBI is concerned, the same has been stayed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai vide Order dated May 21, 2021. They also prima facie observed that the risk factor was already existing on the website and it was in the knowledge of everyone . In Writ Petition No.100 of 2021 the petitioner alleged that he was misled into buying the AT-1 bonds in the secondary market. These are disputed questions of fact. Even otherwise they are incorrect as the petitioner was fully aware of the cognizant of the nature of the AT-1 bonds as: a. Petitioner was one of the directors of the Respondent bank. b. In 2013, when the bonds were issued by the bank the petitioner was a member of the Capital Raising Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are by nature savvy, with risk appetite and cognizant of the high reward - high risk principle. 54. They further submit that the potential investors are always advised by the issuer to carefully consider all the risk factors mentioned in the Information Memorandum before making any investment decision relating to the debentures. They are advised to make their own independent investigations of the financial conditions and affairs of the bank and their own appraisal of the creditworthiness of the bank. The bondholders having enjoyed higher coupon/interest year after year, cannot turn around and in disregard of the contractual provisions. 55. Under the provisions of the Information memorandums, following the write-off of the bonds and claims and demands, neither the bank nor any other person on the banks behalf shall be required to compensate or provide any relief, whether absolutely or contingently, to the bondholder or any other person claiming for or on behalf of or through such holder and all claims and demands of such persons, whether under law, contract or equity, shall stand permanently and irrevocably extinguished and terminated. 56. They further submit that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 1 (b) Additional Tier 1 (ii) Tier 2 Capital (gone-concern capital) 60. The RBI allows banks to meet their capital adequacy requirements by issuing perpetual debts instruments in form of debenture bonds as part of Additional Tier 1 capital, provided they meet certain conditions under Annexure 4. 61. Clause 4.2.4.1 of the Master Circular provides that for any debt capital instrument to be eligible for inclusion in Additional Tier 1 capital, they have to comply with the regulatory requirements as specified in the Annexure 4 of the Master Circular. Annexure 16 of the Master Circular provides for the minimum requirements to ensure Loss Absorbency of Additional Tier 1 instruments at Prespecified Trigger and of all Non-equity Regulatory Capital Instruments at the Point of Non-Viability. 62. Therein under Basel III non-common equity element to be included in Tier 1 capital they should absorb losses while the bank remains a going concern. One of the important criteria for Additional Tier 1 instruments is that these instruments should have principal loss absorption through either (i) conversion into common shares or (ii) a write-down mechanism, which allocates losses to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benture Trust Deed with the petitioner, pursuant to which the Respondent no.4 issued 54,150 perpetual and unsecured debentures bearing coupon rate of 9% in favour of the debenture holders. The said debentures were rated as IND AA/ Outlook: Stable by India Ratings Research Pvt. Ltd, and ICRA AA (hyb) (positive) by ICRA Ltd, indicating a high degree of safety. 68. Due to a catena of reasons, the financial position of the Yes bank was increasingly precarious. Yes Bank witnessed a steady deterioration in its capital adequacy and asset quality. 69. Due to the financially tenuous position of the Yes Bank, the Reserve Bank of India was in constant engagement with the Yes bank s management to find ways to strengthen the balance sheet and liquidity of the Yes Bank. The Yes Bank s management s negotiations with private investors for further capital infusions were not yielding any positive result - as indicated to the officials of the Reserve Bank of India. All the while the Reserve Bank of India preferred a market led revival of the Yes Bank over regulatory restructuring for which many opportunities were granted to the Yes Bank s management to draw up a credible revival plan. But no su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms were acceptable then the bond holders were willing to not pursue any further legal recourse and withdraw the current writ petition pending before this Court. 74. The Union of India in exercise of the powers conferred by 45(4) and 45(7) of the Act of 1949, notified the Final Yes Bank Reconstruction Scheme, 2020 on March 13, 2020. 75. The Administrator of the Yes bank by the impugned letter bearing no. YBL/CS/2019-20/186(2) addressed to the BSE Limited and National Stock Exchange of India Limited informing that the: 3. Given Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 has been invoked by the RBI and the Final Scheme has been notified, the Bank is deemed to be non-viable or approaching non-viability and accordingly, the triggers for a write-down of certain Basel III Additional Tier 1 Bonds issued by the Bank has been triggered. Such AT-1 Bonds would need to be fully written down permanently before any reconstruction of the Bank is undertaken. 4. In light of the above provisions of the Basel III Circular, the Perpetual Subordinated Basel III Complaint Additional Tier 1 Bonds issued by the Bank for an amount of Rs. 3000 crores on December 23, 2016 and the Perpetual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to certain loss absorbency features without the consent of the bond holders. The bonds may be written off or converted into shares in capital or in part upon the occurrence of the trigger events (1) pre-specifying trigger level (2) point of non-viability. Pre-specifying trigger level is also detailed in clause 55. 81. The thrust of the contention of the Petitioners it appears is that Information Memorandum pursuant to which the debentures (AT-1 Bonds) are issued, have a statutory flavour and that upon reconstruction of the bank pursuant to the final reconstruction scheme, the administrator of the Yes Bank had no power to write off these AT-1 bonds. Whereas the Respondents contend that issuance of AT-1 bonds to the Petitioners by the bank is a contractual transaction and that as per Clause 57 of the contract, the administrator was well within his right to write off the bonds and as it is purely a contractual matter and the Yes Bank being a private bank, the Writ Petition would not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 82. The clause of the Information Brochure invoked for writing down the AT-1 bonds viz. Clause 57 reads thus: 57. Other Events ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the Master Circular. Clause 57 of Information Brochure and Clause 2.15 of the Master Circular appear to be ad verbatim. 84. The Reserve Bank of India invoked its powers under section 45 of the Act of 1949 of taking steps for reconstruction of Yes Bank. Reserve Bank of India under sub section 1 of section 45 of the Act of 1949 made an order of moratorium of Yes Bank commencing from March 5, 2020 along with directions under section 35A of the Act, 1949. The Reserve Bank of India also appointed Administrator over the Yes Bank during this period of moratorium on or about March 6, 2020. RBI placed in public domain a scheme of reconstruction of Yes Bank Limited. Paragraph 6 of the Scheme laid down the provisions of the writing down of AT-1 bonds. Suggestions were invited to the draft scheme upto March 9, 2020. The objections were raised by the debenture / AT-1 bond holders. Subsequently, the final reconstruction was notified on March 13, 2020. Sub section 8 of section 45 of the Act of 1949 prescribes that on and from the date of coming into operation of the scheme, the scheme shall be binding on the banking Company, or, as the case may be, on the transferee bank and another bankin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribes March 13, 2020 as the date the scheme would come into force. 89. Sub section 5 of section 45 of the Act of 1949 prescribes the matters to be stipulated in the final scheme. The Final Reconstruction Scheme did not engulf within its fold writing down / off the AT-1 bonds. 90. The scheme came into force on March 13, 2020. Yes Bank stood reconstructed on March 13, 2020. Clause 57 of the Information Brochure also suggest that the written-down of AT-1 bonds could only be done before the bank is reconstructed. 91. Under the final scheme, the moratorium period was only extended to three working days from the date of notification of the scheme and the appointment of administrator was continued till 7 working days. Only because the moratorium period was extended and or the administrator was continued for further period of 7 days, that in itself would not be sufficient to conclude that the reconstruction scheme has not come into effect on March 13, 2020. 92. The draft scheme under paragraph 1 (2) states that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette specify. Clause 2(1) (b) of the draft scheme provided th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 45 of Act of 1949 empowers the Central Government to specify different dates for different provisions of the scheme. 95. In the final scheme, March 13, 2020 is the date prescribed of coming into force the scheme, the same would mean that the Bank stood reconstituted on March 13, 2020. 96. Only because the shares were to be allotted to SBI within two working days of the final scheme being notified, would not extend the date from which the scheme came into force nor it would extend the appointed date or the date the Bank is reconstituted. Yes Bank stands reconstituted on March 13, 2020. Under the Scheme, Moratorium period was extended by three days and the Administrator to vacate the office after seven calendar days from the date of cessation of moratorium. 97. One more aspect that requires consideration is that the Yes Bank stood reconstituted on March 13, 2020 upon the Notification of the final Yes Bank Ltd. Reconstruction Scheme, 2020. After the bank was reconstituted, the Administrator could not have taken such a policy decision of writing off the debentures. The Board of Directors were notified in the final scheme. However, actual time period was given for the Board o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
