RCL case moved to NCLT for payment defaults, Governance Issues

Mumbai: The RBI on Thursday filed an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against debt-ridden Reliance Capital at the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal.

The Reserve Bank had on November 29 superseded the board of Anil Ambani-promoted Reliance Capital Ltd (RCL) in view of payment defaults and serious governance issues.

The central bank had also appointed Nageswar Rao Y (former executive director, Bank of Maharashtra) as the administrator of the company.

In a statement on Thursday, the Reserve Bank said it has filed an application for initiation of CIRP against Reliance Capital Ltd under various sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

As the RBI has moved NCLT, an interim moratorium would be applicable on Reliance Capital. The interim moratorium would also be on transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein.

As per the Financial Service Providers Insolvency Rules, an interim moratorium commences on and from the date of filing of the application till its admission or rejection. This is the third large NBFC against which the central bank has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under the IBC recently. The other two were Srei Group NBFCs and Dewan Housing Finance Corporation (DHFL).

In September, Reliance Capital in its annual general meeting (AGM) had informed shareholders that the company’s consolidated debt was Rs 40,000 crore.

The company reported a consolidated loss of Rs 1,156 crore for the second quarter this fiscal against Rs 6,001 crore income. During 2020-21, the company posted a loss of Rs 9,287 crore on a total income of Rs 19,308 crore.

While superseding the board of Reliance Capital on Monday, the RBI had said it was being done “in view of the defaults by RCL in meeting the various payment obligations to its creditors and serious governance concerns which the Board has not been able to address effectively”.