Summary: The Indian banking sector faces a significant challenge with rising non-performing assets (NPAs), which reached alarming levels following the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) “zero tolerance approach” in 2015. The Gross Non-Performing Assets surged from ₹53,917 crore in September 2008 to ₹5,90,772 crore by March 2016, driven primarily by public sector banks. In response, the RBI introduced various debt restructuring initiatives aimed at alleviating the NPA crisis, including the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) scheme, the 5:25 scheme, the Strategic Debt Restructuring (SDR) program, and the Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A) scheme. Each program has encountered mixed success; while some firms temporarily benefited, critics argue these measures often serve to extend financial distress rather than resolve underlying issues. The effectiveness of these schemes remains under scrutiny, with case studies highlighting low success rates and ongoing structural challenges within distressed companies. Consequently, the long-term impact of these restructuring plans raises questions about their effectiveness in curbing the growth of NPAs and restoring stability to the banking sector.
Introduction
Rising flood of non-performing assets (NPAs) has presented a major obstacle for the Indian banking industry recently. Building over time, this situation peaked when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) implemented a “zero tolerance approach” in 2015, telling banks to tidy their books by March 2016. With an increase of Rs. 200,000 crore in just one quarter (Q4’16), this mandate produced a significant rise in Gross Non-Performing Assets (GNPAs). Looking at the long-term pattern helps us to even more clearly see the degree of the problem. From Rs. 53,917 crore in September 2008 (before the global financial crisis) to Rs. 5,90,772 crore in March 2016, GNPAs have climbed at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 35%. Reaching its highest level in 12 years, GNPA as a proportion of total loans has climbed from 2.11% to 7.7%. Comprising more than 90% of GNPAs, public sector banks have been especially severely impacted.
With RBI estimates showing the gross NPA of the Indian banking industry could increase to 8.5% by March 2017, the situation is projected to get worse. The RBI has been introducing several debt restructuring plans in response to this concerning trend in order to solve the mounting NPA situation and help stressed corporate borrowers as well as banks.
The main debt restructuring plans implemented in India will be discussed in this paper together with their legal background and degree of success in resolving the NPA situation. Four main schemes will be the emphasis: the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) scheme, the 5:25 scheme, the Strategic Debt Restructuring (SDR) scheme, and the Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A).
Business Debt Restructuring Program (CDR)
Background and Legal Framework
The Reserve Bank of India launched the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) initiative on August 23, 2001, in response to the mounting difficulties corporates were having paying debt. The main goal of the CDR program was to offer a quick, reasonably priced, market-friendly tool to assist in restoring viable corporates and enable the credit market to start out from a downward spiral.
Under the direction of the RBI, the CDR system runs under auspices and is run by policies published by the central bank. The Standing Forum of Public and Private Sector Banks, sometimes known as the “CDR Standing Forum,” and its Core Group, known as the “CDR Core Group,” handle the scheme; the regulatory structure for the CDR scheme is essentially based on the following RBI circulars:
DBOD No. BP.BC.15/21.04.114/2000-2001 dated August 23, 2001 (first guidelines)
DBOD. No. BP. BC.68/21.04.132/2002-03, amended guidelines, February 5, 2003
Later circulars and alerts sent by the RBI to improve and upgrade the system
Covering just numerous banking accounts and syndication/consortium accounts with outstanding exposure of Rs. 10 crore and beyond, the CDR mechanism spans Notably, the CDR system is a non-statutory process grounded on Inter-Creditor Agreement (ICA) and
Debtor-Creditor Agreement (DCA).
Execution and Efficiency
The CDR program has had accomplishments and setbacks over its 15-year existence. Among notable achievements include Wockhardt Pharmaceuticals’ debt restructuring effort, which helped business to earn a profit once more. High-profile failures like Bharti Shipyard and Leela Ventures, however, also throw doubt on the general efficiency of the plan.
With 22% of this sum focused in the steel sector, 208 cases under CDR as of June 30, 2016 totalled Rs. 2,36,868 crore. While 228 cases (Rs. 97,242 crore) have pulled out citing package failure, 94 cases (Rs. 68,894 crore) have successfully left the CDR scheme by completing package conditions from their beginning.
There has been argument about the success of the CDR program. Although some challenged businesses have found temporary reprieve from it, detractors contend that it has been more frequently utilised as a tool for evergreening loans than as a means of resolving the underlying causes of financial difficulties. Based on the amount of cases that have effectively left the system, its success rate—about 29%—suggests that it has had little impact in offering a long-term fix for the NPA crisis.
Case rules and legal framework
The CDR system runs inside the larger legal framework of Indian corporate and banking rules. Important legal features and case rules pertaining to the CDR system include in:
Mostly based on contractual agreements (DCA and ICA) between creditors and debtors, the CDR plan is contractual nature. Courts have maintained this contractual character, as demonstrated by the 2011 decision “Export Import Bank of India vs. KDIL Ltd. & Ors” whereby the Bombay High Court acknowledged the CDR agreement’s binding character.
Judicial Review: Although courts usually avoid meddling with the commercial decisions rendered under the CDR system, they may step in circumstances of obvious arbitrariness or transgression of natural justice. Established in “Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. State Bank of India & Ors” (2011) this idea is Emphasising the group character of the restructuring process, the Supreme Court decided in “ICICi Bank Ltd. vs. Sidco Leathers Ltd. & Ors” (2006) that CDR agreements have precedence over personal actions by creditors.
“United Bank of India vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors” (2017) addressed the rights of dissenting creditors inside the CDR framework; the Supreme Court concluded in this regard that although majority decisions in CDR are binding, the fundamental rights of dissenting creditors cannot be totally discounted.
Five-25 Scheme
Background and Legislative Structure
The RBI launched the 5:25 plan in December 2014 to solve banks’ asset-liability mismatch on funding long-term infrastructure projects. With the initiative, banks can prolong the maturity of infrastructure loans (more than Rs. 500 crore) for up to 25 years, allowing the part of the principle still owing at the end of five years to be refinaced.
The 5:25 scheme’s regulatory structure mostly relies on RBI circulars like these:
DBOD No. BP.BC.24/21.04.132/2014-15 issued July 15, 2014 (first guidelines)
December 15, 2014 (extension to current projects) DBR. No. BP. BC.53/21.04.132/2014-15
Effectiveness and Implementation
Originally meant for new projects, the 5:25 plan was later extended to include already-existing ones. Loans of Rs. 1.25 lakh crore had been refinanced under the 5:25 plan as of March 31, 2016. The plan seeks to provide banks and borrowers freedom in handling long-term infrastructure funding.
Still, the success of the 5:25 program is also under evaluation. Protecting the Net Present Value (NPV) of the loans being refinanced is the main difficulty for banks since the cost is probably going to swell towards the end of the loan period. The real test of the program will be when these loans are due for their first refinancing following five years.
Case laws and the legal framework
The 5:25 program runs inside the larger framework of RBI-set cautious guidelines and banking rules. Important legal features and case rules pertaining to the 5:25 scheme consist in:
Banks have to guarantee adherence to RBI policies even as they carry out the 5:25 scheme. The Delhi High Court underlined in “Central Bank of India vs. Reserve Bank of India” (2016) the need of following rules in order to flexible loan arrangement.
Treatment of refinanced loans under the 5:25 method for asset classification purposes has generated controversy. The Bombay High Court maintained the RBI’s authority in determining asset classification rules for restructured debts in “Indian Banks’ Association vs. Reserve Bank of India” (2017).
The 5:25 scheme affects disclosure rules and financial reporting. The Securities Appellate Tribunal underlined in “Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd.,” (2016) the need of sufficient disclosure of debt restructuring under schemes like 5:25 for listed businesses.
Strategic Debt Restructuring Program (SDR)
Background and Framework for Regulation
Introduced by the RBI in June 2015, the Strategic Debt Restructuring (SDR) initiative aims to increase lenders’ capacity to handle stressed assets. The program lets banks turn loans—including unpaid interest—into a 51% ownership holding, then sell at least 26% stake to a new promoter.
The SDR scheme’s regulatory structure mostly rests on the following RBI circulars:
DBR.BP.BC.No.101/21.04.132/2014-15 issued June 8, 2015 (first guidelines)
September 24, 2015 DBR.BP.BC No. 41/21.04.48/2015-16 clarifications
DBR.BP.BC. No. 82/21.04.132/2015-16 dated February 25, 2016 (adjusted rules)
Application and Efficiency
The SDR program was meant to be a means of handling rogue promoters and providing banks with choice to switch the management for a business comeback. Still, the program has had significant difficulties being carried out:
Banks have battled to locate appropriate buyers for their equity interests over the mandated 18-month term.
Valuation problems: For banks, particularly in cases of stressed enterprises with low market valuations, the conversion of debt to stock at market prices has sometimes resulted in major mark-to–market losses.
Management challenges: Banks have often been compelled to rely on current management to operate daily operations of the business in the lack of interested outside buyers, therefore undermining the goal of management reform.
Restricted success in tackling structural problems: Many times, structural problems such as overcapacity or insufficient demand arise from which management alone cannot fix.
The SDR scheme’s ability to solve the NPA issue has thus been somewhat limited. Although precise numbers are not publicly accessible, anecdotal data points to just a tiny percentage of SDR cases leading to successful resolution.
Case rules and legal framework
Operating within the context of banking, corporate, and securities legislation, the SDR system is Several important legal features and case rules pertaining to the SDR scheme consist in:
Courts have maintained and disputed the RBI’s authority to implement initiatives including SDR. The Delhi High Court confirmed in 2017’s “Shivam Enterprises vs. Reserve Bank of India” the RBI’s jurisdiction to provide debt restructuring guidelines.
The SDR plan offers banks purchasing equity through loan conversion exemption from the SEBI Takeover Code. Challenged in “Neeraj Singal vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India” (2016), this exemption was maintained by the Securities Appellate Tribunal.
The effect of SDR on minority shareholders has been a divisive topic. Emphasising the significance of balancing the interests of all stakeholders—including minority shareholders—in debt restructuring procedures, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) underlined in “Anuj Jain vs. Jaypee Infratech Limited” (2018).
Sustainable Structural Design of Stressed Assets (S4A) Scheme
Contextual background and legal framework
Understanding the limits of past policies, the RBI unveiled on June 13, 2016 the Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A). The S4A program seeks to give corporate organisations experiencing real challenges a framework for restructuring their financial situation.
The S4A scheme’s regulatory structure mostly rests on the following RBI circulars:
June 13, 2016 (first guidelines) DBR. No. BP.BC.103/21.04.132/2015-16
November 10, 2016 DBR. No. BP. BC.34/21.04.132/2016-17 (changes)
Application and Successfulness
The outstanding debt under the S4A program is split in two:
Part A: Sustainable debt the free cash flow of the business can support.
Part B: Unsustainably debt turned into redeemable preference shares or equity
Projects starting commercial activities and with outstanding loans above Rs. 500 crore fall under the S4A plan. The Indian Banks Association established an Overseeing Committee in cooperation with the RBI to guarantee openness by means of assessment of the procedure engaged in developing the resolution plan.
The S4A system confronts various difficulties even if it solves some of the restrictions of previous systems:
Restricted scope: The plan is only relevant for operational projects involving significant loan amounts, therefore limiting its applicability for smaller or under-construction enterprises.
Concerns about sustainability mean that many businesses might find it difficult to service even the debt’s sustainable share.
Lack of flexibility: The plan limits banks’ capacity to give troubled businesses relief by not allowing adjustments to loan terms for the sustainable component.
Diluting of the promoter stake: The great degree of stock dilution could lower the motivation of promoters to turn around the business.
The S4A program is still very young, hence its ability to solve stressed assets is yet under evaluation. But given the rigorous eligibility rules and execution difficulties, first signs point to a limited influence.
Legal Framework and Case Laws
The S4A program runs inside the larger context of company legislation and banking rules. Several important legal considerations and case laws pertaining to the S4A program include in:
Courts have called into doubt the RBI’s authority to launch programs like S4A. The Gujarat High Court maintained in 2017’s “Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Reserve Bank of India” the RBI’s authority to give instructions for stressed asset resolution.
Inter-creditor problems: S4A’s adoption might cause strife among several creditor classes. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) underlined in “State Bank of India vs. Visa Steel Ltd. (2018) the need of consensus among creditors in applying debt restructuring plans.”
Shareholder Rights: For current owners, S4A’s debt to equity conversion affects The Karnataka High Court underlined in “Kiran Mazumdar Shaw vs. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (2017) the need of giving shareholder interests in debt-equity conversions top priority.
In conclusion
Introduced by the RBI, the debt restructuring programs show a deliberate attempt to solve the escalating NPA situation in Indian banks. Every program—CDR, 5:25, SDR, and S4A—has sought to offer a structure for managing stressed assets and resurrecting profitable companies. Still, it is dubious how well these programs offer a long-term fix for the NPA issue.
Although these programs have given banks and troubled businesses temporary reprieve, they have sometimes been attacked for only postponing the acceptance of bad loans instead of tackling the underlying causes of financial crisis. The low success rates of programs like CDR and the implementation difficulties SDR and S4A encounter point to the need of a more all-encompassing strategy to address the NPA problem.
With the RBI routinely publishing fresh rules and explanations, the regulatory environment around these debt restructuring programs keeps changing. Different court rulings have influenced the legal framework, which now shows the requirement of balancing the interests of several parties and offers some clarity on the execution of these schemes.
The NPA situation will ultimately call for a multi-pronged strategy going beyond debt restructuring. This could call for changes in the banking industry, credit assessment procedures, and operational turnabout of underdeveloped companies. Perhaps it’s time for a basic change in how we handle the issue of stressed assets in the Indian financial system, as the well-known comment by Anais Nin suggests: “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
Author Bio
