The Bombay excessive court docket has granted time to the Reserve Financial institution of India (RBI) and Securities and Alternate Board of India (Sebi) to file responses in a petition filed by particular person holders of Sure Financial institution extra tier 1 (AT1) bonds.
The bondholders, who had approached the court docket in February below the banner of the AT1 Bondholders Affiliation, declare that the sale of bonds was unlawful and have requested for Sure Financial institution to be directed to deposit ₹160 crore in court docket, pending a call within the case.
The Supreme Courtroom had in October 2020 directed the affiliation to strategy the excessive court docket. The petitioners on this case had invested about ₹160 crore in Sure Financial institution’s AT1 bonds.
“Among the respondents together with Sebi and RBI sought time to file a reply to our interim aid software. The court docket has allowed them to file the identical and listed the matter subsequent on 26 April,” mentioned Srijan Sinha, an advocate who appeared on behalf of the affiliation. The petition named 16 respondents together with Sebi, RBI, the Union of India, Sure Financial institution, Sure Securities (India) and Axis Trustee Providers, amongst others.
On March 13, 2020, the federal government had authorised a rescue plan for Sure Financial institution, backed by the State Financial institution of India (SBI). Home buyers— SBI, Housing Improvement Finance Corp, ICICI Financial institution, Kotak Mahindra Financial institution, Bandhan Financial institution, Federal Financial institution and IDFC First financial institution—had invested ₹10,000 crore in Sure Financial institution. Nonetheless, Sure Financial institution’s AT1 bonds value ₹8,415 crore had been written down in full in March final 12 months.
The petitioners mentioned they’re victims of an unlawful sale of perpetual subordinated unsecured non-convertible ATl bonds made by the personal respondents, in collusion with Sure Financial institution and different intermediaries.
“Such an unlawful sale of such AT1 bonds was perpetuated below the eyes of respondent primary (RBI) and respondent quantity three (Sebi).