Unfortunately, what is really the first management of process failures in the financial sector – that is, a method that emphasizes public finances (which cause taxpayers` money to pay depositors) or more efficient companies (a stronger bank that takes control of a weaker bank) – is not disclosed unnecessarily. This is done under the guise of “public interest,” even though the protection in the FRDI Act maintains the public interests by law on a higher ground than the current randomness of good intentions. Most criticism relates to a bailout clause [ix] – a provision that removes the liability of an insured provider; A provision that alters or alters the form of liability owed by an insured provider; a provision that a contract or agreement under which a covered service provider is held liable takes effect as if a specific right had been exercised under this contract. Section 73 (3) of the Act provides that any deposit accepted by a corporation is repaid with interest under the terms of the contract, after the amount of the financial debt has been reviewed in accordance with the code, referring to the provisions of the 2013 Corporations Act (“Law”). The term “deposits” is defined in section 2(31) of the Act and includes any receipt of money by a company, either in the form of a loan or in some other way, with the exception of certain exempt income under the Reserve Bank of India. In addition, the law requires that the company that accepts the deposits repay the same interest under the terms of the agreement reached on that behalf.  This company is required to deposit at least 15% of the amount of deposits due in one fiscal year and the following year, called the deposit repayment reserve account, into a separate bank account.  The 2014 rules on the acceptance of deposits, of companies (acceptance of deposits) provide for other obligations, such as the creation of guarantees, the appointment of agents and the maintenance of liquid assets.  In the case of a simple reading of these provisions, it can be concluded that public deposits necessarily involve the repayment of debts, the present value of the money being properly offset by the repayment of the principal amount with interest. The authors` thesis is supported by NCLT`s observation in DF Deutsche Package AG v. Uttam Steel Galva Ltd., that DHFL could be one of the first cases to test the rules notified in accordance with Section 227 of the IBC. Sources indicated that the current DHFL resolution under the interbank agreement of the banks would probably not yield results and that Krediots could be forced to send them back as soon as the rules are in force. If this goal is not met, confidence will be restored and the NBFC sector will be a major blow.
Previous attempts at a resolution have failed in the event of conflicts of interest between banks, investment funds (MFs) and depositors. It was not possible to reach an agreement between the creditors. In order to strengthen the centrality of the creditors` committee, approval of the resolution plan is required. The relevant regulatory authority is also required to present a certificate of non-recourse after authorisation. This certificate of complaint must be provided by the relevant regulatory authority on the basis of “reasonable” criteria for the Activity of the FSP, without prejudice to the applicability of the eligibility criteria defined in Section 29A of the FBC. Since the resolution of financial firms must be timely, a concept of “non-wall” was developed after 45 days after the application was submitted to the relevant regulator.