The RBI has amended IRACP norms to permit NBFCs to factor in Default Loss Guarantee arrangements while computing Expected Credit Loss, subject to IndAS conditions. The changes apply immediately.
The amendment sets a 40% aggregate CME ceiling and a 20% cap on direct investments. It strengthens prudential controls over market-linked exposures and intra-day risk management.
Jharkhand Gramin Bank has announced empanelment of retired Scale II–V officers for contractual concurrent audit roles. The engagement is for three years with defined eligibility conditions, remuneration options, and region-wise postings across Jharkhand.
Even though the form was auto-approved under STP mode, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty for inaccurate disclosure. Responsibility for correctness rests with the digital signatory.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties under Section 172 after a public company failed to fill a Woman Director vacancy within the prescribed three-month period, resulting in 18 days of non-compliance.
The Adjudicating Officer held that omission of a mandatory valuation report in private placement filings violates Rule 12(7) and attracts penalty under Section 450 of the Companies Act. The plea of oversight was rejected, reinforcing strict compliance in statutory e-forms.
IRDAI Circular dated 12 February 2026 clarifies insurers’ investments in AIFs with Excusal Rights under Section 27E of the Insurance Act, 1938. The circular introduces compliance conditions, documentation requirements, auditor certifications, and revised single AIF exposure limits covering direct and indirect exposure through Fund of Funds.
The appellate authority held that information can be disclosed only if it is held or controlled by the public authority. As the requested 1986 committee report was not available with the Board, the RTI appeal was disposed of.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to attach the mandatory valuation report in private placement filings violates Rule 12(7) and attracts penalty under Section 450. Oversight was not accepted as a valid defence.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to appoint the required two independent directors within the statutory timeline violates Section 149. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and its officers.
