Latest news with #RInfra
The Print
3 days ago
- Business
- The Print
RInfra, Rpower say Enforcement Directorate concludes searches
The company continues to operate in the normal course and the said action has no impact on its business operations, said two separate statements issued by both RInfra as well as RPower. 'The action by ED has concluded at all locations. The company and all its officials have fully cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the authority,' RPower said in its latest stock exchange filing. New Delhi, Jul 27 (PTI) Reliance Group firms Reliance Infrastructure (RInfra) and Reliance Power (RPower) on Sunday said the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has concluded searches at their premises and the companies will continue to cooperate with the federal probe agency. On Saturday, the ED carried out searches against the companies of Reliance Group chairman Anil Ambani in Mumbai for the third day and recovered a number of documents and computer peripherals from multiple locations, according to official sources. The raids were launched on July 24 by the federal probe agency as part of an alleged Rs 3,000-crore bank loan fraud-linked money laundering case apart from multiple other allegations of financial irregularities with crores of rupees by certain companies. 'The action by the ED has had no impact on the business operations, financial performance, shareholders, employees, or any other stakeholders,' the two companies said in their stock exchange filings. Anil D. Ambani is not on the boards of RInfra and RPower. Accordingly, any action taken against RCOM or RHFL has no bearing or impact on the governance, management, or operations of RInfra and RPower, the two companies said. According to ED sources, the investigation primarily pertains to allegations of illegal loan diversion of around Rs 3,000 crore, given by the Yes Bank to the group companies of Ambani between 2017 and 2019. The Union government had informed the Parliament recently that the State Bank of India has classified RCOM along with Ambani as 'fraud' and was also in the process of lodging a complaint with the CBI. A bank loan 'fraud' of more than Rs 1,050 crore between RCOM and Canara Bank is also under the scanner of the ED apart from some 'undisclosed' foreign bank accounts and assets, the ED sources said. Reliance Mutual fund is also stated to have invested Rs 2,850 crore in AT-1 bonds and a 'quid pro quo' is suspected here by the agency. Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) are perpetual bonds issued by banks to increase their capital base and they are riskier than traditional bonds having higher interest rates. An alleged loan fund diversion of about Rs 10,000 crore involving Reliance Infrastructure too is under the scanner of the agency. PTI ABI HVA This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
News18
17-07-2025
- Business
- News18
Reliance Infra Shares In Focus Over Rs 9000 Cr Fund Raise Plan, Stocks Up 111% In 1 Year
Last Updated: Reliance Infra Share Price: Reliance Infrastructure Limited, led by Anil Ambani, plans to raise up to Rs 9000 crore through QIP/FPO and debentures. Reliance Infra share price. Reliance Infra Share Price: Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure Limited (RInfra) shares will be in focus during the Thursday session following the company's board meeting approving fund raise plan up to Rs 9000 crore through qualified institutions placement (QIP) or follow-on public offer (FPO). Out of Rs 9000 crore fund raised, Rs 6000 crore will be raised through QIP/FPO and the remaining Rs 3000 crore will be sought by issuance of secured/unsecured, redeemable, non-convertible debentures on a private placement basis. Reliance Infrastructure (RInfra) is a major Indian infrastructure company involved in power generation, transmission, distribution, and trading, as well as roads, metro rail, and defence. '…the Board of Directors, at its meeting held today, i.e., Wednesday, July 16, 2025, has, inter alia, approved seeking enabling authorization from the members for: raising funds up to Rs 6,000 crore through the issuance of equity shares and/or equity linked instruments and/or other eligible securities to qualified institutional buyers by way of a Qualified Institutions Placement and /or follow on public offer or a combination thereof;" Reliance Infrastructure Limited said in the filing. 'issuance of secured/unsecured, redeemable, non-convertible debentures up to Rs 3,000 crore, in one or more tranches/series, on a private placement basis or otherwise." Reliance Infrastructure Share Price History Over the past one month, the stock has gained 5.31%, outperforming the Sensex which rose 1.02%, and the BSE Utilities index at 3.63%. On a Year-To-Date (YTD) basis, the stock has jumped 25.42%, significantly ahead of the Sensex's 5.26% rise and the Utilities index's 1.42% gain. In Q4 FY25, Reliance Infra's consolidated EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation) soared to Rs 8,876 crore, nearly seven times higher than the ₹1,136 crore recorded in the previous quarter (Q3 FY25). The profit after tax (PAT) for the reported quarter was ₹4,387 crore, compared to a loss of ₹3,298 crore in Q3 FY25. The company's consolidated net worth rose 44 percent quarter-on-quarter (QoQ) to Rs 14,287 crore as of March 31, 2025, up from ₹9,899 crore as of December 31, 2024. Additionally, the company noted that its standalone net debt from banks and financial institutions was zero as of March 31, 2025, reflecting a reduction of approximately Rs 3,300 crore during FY25. view comments First Published: July 17, 2025, 06:55 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Wire
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Wire
Is Yes Bank Providing Custodial Services to RInfra for Its Valuable Property?
A high-profile bank collapses on account of high-risk, bulky non-performing corporate loans. With the intervention of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the errant bank gets bailed out, and the RBI nominates two directors to the board. The new management and the restructured board of directors would then take stringent action to recover their bad loans, right? Apparently not, if the borrower is Reliance Infrastructure (RInfra). Instead, Yes Bank worked out a special deal for RInfra. The first part seems straightforward: The bank obtained a valuable property of RInfra in lieu of repayment of its debt of the same value. The catch is, Yes Bank couldn't just liquidate the property and take the cash. By a separate agreement, it entered into RInfra has the option of buying back the property from Yes Bank at any time during the following 9 years! Let us start at the beginning. RBI imposed a moratorium on Yes Bank on March 5, 2020. The moratorium was lifted 13 days later, after a new CEO had taken charge and the board was reconstituted. A year later, on March 31, 2021, Yes Bank signed an unusual agreement with RInfra: a debt-asset swap whereby the latter's bad debt of Rs 12 bn was swapped for a real estate property which housed RInfra's head office. This property later became Yes Bank's registered office at CTS No 34, Final Plot No. 61A of TPS V Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400055, Maharashtra. Yes Bank acquired head office from RInfra. Source: RInfra The property, consisting of a land area of 15,514 square metres and a building with a built-up area of 34,361 square metres, was valued at Rs 11.75 bn, with a stamp duty of Rs 350 mn, aggregating to Rs 12.1 bn. Yes Bank acquired the property from RInfra in a registered conveyance/sales deed (BDR 17/4656/2021 Sub-Registrar's office, Mumbai) and reduced the company's outstanding non-performing loan by Rs 12 bn. Extract of Conveyance/Sales Deed – BDR 17/4656/2021 between RInfra and Yes Bank Normally, when banks acquire property in a bad debt settlement, their immediate task is to liquidate the security and offset the bad loan dues. This is the normal procedure, as banks are not in the business of property acquisition or management. But, in this case, Yes Bank decided to make this property its registered corporate office. The bank may argue that its registered office would be rent free for 9 years but commercial rental yields are lower than the lending yield of Yes Bank's incremental loans i.e. if the bank had liquidated the security and lent the funds, the return would have been higher than the rental savings from the property. Source: Yes Bank FY2021 Annual Report p. 228 Correspondingly, Yes Bank reported a reduction in its electricity (generation, transmission and distribution) gross Non Performing Assets (NPAs) by Rs 20 bn to Rs 5.9 bn in FY2021 from Rs 25.9 bn in FY2020 Yes Bank Non-Priority Sector Gross Loans and Gross NPAs Source: Yes Bank FY2021 Annual Report p. 183 It is pertinent to note that the debt-swap sales agreement between Yes Bank and RInfra was signed on the last date of FY2021 i.e. March 31, 2021, as the restructured board of directors was keen to report lower gross NPAs in its first year of operations and RInfra was a large NPA account (as was the Anil Ambani group) in Yes Bank. Here's the catch: A highly unusual component of the debt-asset swap was the simultaneous registration of an option agreement (BDR 17/4657/2021, Sub-registrar's office, Mumbai) between RInfra and Yes Bank on March 31, 2021 which gave the right to the option holder (RInfra) to buy back the property from Yes Bank within 9 years of the sale to Yes Bank i.e by March 30, 2030. At the peak of Covid (from end February 2021), the Yes Bank board was confident that one of the largest defaulter corporate groups in India would be able to buy back RInfra's corporate office. The option agreement disclosed some important issues which in effect challenge the validity of the sale to Yes Bank (owner). The option agreement makes the two following statements: Source: BDR 17/4657/2021, Sub-registrar's office, Mumbai p. 2 The irony in these two paragraphs of the option agreement is that the second para starkly contradicts the first paragraph. How can Yes Bank be the 'sole and absolute owner' when the bank has simultaneously agreed to an 'absolute and irrevocable option' on the same property with RInfra which has the following restrictive clauses? Clause 4.4.3 of the option agreement states, 'The Owner [Yes Bank] and the Option Holder [RInfra] shall not utilise or monetise or deal with any additional/unused floor space index [FSI] whether directly or indirectly on the Subject Land during the subsistence of this Option Agreement and the Lease Deed, respectively.' Clause 4.2.4 of the option agreement states, 'The Option Holder [RInfra] agrees that the Owner [Yes Bank] shall have the absolute right to create a mortgage and/or other security interest over the Subject Property, whether in whole or in part or on any of its rights, title and interest in the Subject Property. The Owner further agrees that if at any time during the subsistence of this Agreement, the Owner seeks to sell the said Property, such sale of the Subject Property shall be subject to the rights of the Option Holder under this Agreement and any new owner of the Subject Property shall be bound by the terms of this Agreement in its capacity as the successor in title of the Subject Property. The Owner shall disclose this Agreement to any person/entity with which the Owner engages for dealing in any manner with the Subject Property, including for creation of encumbrances or sale or otherwise howsoever.' Both these clauses restrict the rights of Yes Bank as the absolute owner of the said property. Yes Bank should have had the right to utilise/monetise any additional or unused FSI on the said property, but this clause places restrictions on Yes Bank's ability to take advantage of any unutilised FSI on the property. Similarly, clause 4.2.4 also imposes restrictions on Yes Bank. If Yes Bank decides to sell the property during the 9 years to a third party, the buyer will have to abide and will also be bound by this agreement. This clause restricts Yes Bank's absolute ownership, as it constrains Yes Bank's right to sell and reduces the market value of the property as any new owner after Yes Bank will have to contend with the Option Holder's rights which include buying the property from the new owner anytime during the remaining period of the option agreement. These restrictions impact the value of the property, and have been deliberately inserted to protect the interests of RInfra, the defaulting party. It is apparent from these clauses that the sale by RInfra to Yes Bank of the said property is a conditional, and not an absolute, sale, which may not stand scrutiny in a court of law. It is important to note that the sale/conveyance deed between the 2 parties does not contain any restrictions, and states that the sale is in consideration of a NPA settlement. Therefore no alarm bells ring in the conveyance deed. The nuances and restrictions of the entire transaction are to be found in the option agreement, which has these important restrictive clauses highlighting the fact that the sale is not absolute, but is in fact a conditional sale. As the said property, which is Yes Bank's registered office, resides on the bank's balance sheet, the bank should have disclosed in the accounts that the sale was conditional, as it did not have the rights to monetise the unutilised FSI, and in case of a sale to a third party, the option agreement would be binding on the buyer. Neither has the bank disclosed this vital information nor has the auditor, M P Chitale & Co. chosen to comment on it and bring it to the notice of the shareholders. These impact the valuation of the property, and shareholders needed to be informed about this development. It is unfortunate that the restructured board of directors, which had nominees of the Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India, agreed to these clauses and was comfortable with this non-disclosure to shareholders. Another unusual clause is on pages 7-8 of the option agreement: Source: BDR 17/4657/2021, Sub-registrar's office, Mumbai (p. 9) It was RInfra that was the defaulter with Yes Bank, and not the promoters of RInfra; yet for some inexplicable reason, the agreement states that if control of RInfra were to change from the existing promoters, or if the option holder ceases to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of RInfra, the buyback agreement would be null and void. It appears from the option agreement that the promoters of RInfra are more interested in the buyback of the property than RInfra itself, which owned the property and was the entity which defaulted on its debt with Yes Bank. It is interesting to note that the restrictive clauses challenging Yes Bank's right as the 'sole and absolute' owner of the property are not included in the sale/conveyance agreement, but are set forth in the option agreement. Moreover, even though both agreements are inter-linked and sequentially registered with the sub-registrar's office in Mumbai on March 31, 2021 with numbers BDR 17/4656/2021 (sale/conveyance agreement) and BDR 17/4657/2021 (option agreement), no reference is made in each of the agreements to the other agreement. In the option agreement the only mention of a conveyance deed between RInfra as vendor and Yes Bank as vendee is seen in Annexure 3 to Schedule 4. This Schedule 4 is a pre-agreed draft/format of the Option Exercise Conveyance Deed, should RInfra purchase it back from the Bank. Surprisingly, there are two un-numbered Annexures to this Schedule 4. One, Board Resolution of Yes Bank dated March 26, 2021 and the other is Minutes of Meetings of the RInfra Board, dated March 25, 2021, mentioning Option Agreement (no disclosure of the restrictive clauses) and buy back, respectively. It is apparent that if the restrictive clauses were included in the sales/conveyance agreement, registering the agreement may have been difficult. While the debt asset swap of RInfra and Yes Bank, with the latter acquiring a new registered office, was widely reported in the media (here and here), the highly material option agreement was not disclosed, as its restrictive clauses would have raised concerns regarding the genuineness of the sale. By keeping a prime real estate property with Yes Bank for a maximum of 9 years, RInfra has effectively ring-fenced this property from its other creditors, and Yes Bank has been used as a custodian. Another issue is how was the value of the property determined at Rs 12 bn? And was it determined by the valuers after factoring the option to buyback? If the valuers were unaware of the buyback option agreement then they overvalued the asset and Yes Bank showed a higher settlement of NPAs through accounting. In the NPA resolution between RInfra and Yes Bank, another real estate property of the former was given as security to Yes Bank. On July 22, 2020 Yes Bank had issued a possession notice of taking over another prime property of RInfra, measuring 4,936 sq ft., on the 6 th floor at Nagin Mahal, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai 400020. It is unknown whether a similar buyback arrangement has been done with RInfra, or the bank continues to hold the property as security, or the bank has released its charge. Source: Newspaper On account of this unusual NPA settlement with a prominent corporate defaulter, Yes Bank needs to be transparent on the size of the total dues of the Anil Ambani group of companies, and, in the settlement of the NPAs, what, if any, was the haircut the bank took on its total exposure to the group. A valid question to Yes Bank would be whether a buyback option was given to all the NPAs of the bank by the new management and if it was not given, it will be helpful for stakeholders to understand why only RIfra was given such a buyback option. This analyst sent a query to Yes Bank requesting clarifications and explanations of why the bank had undertaken the buyback clause with these restrictive clauses in the option agreement, and how many such buybacks the bank had undertaken with other defaulters. Yes Bank responded with the following statement: 'The Bank does not make public disclosures about its transactions with its customers/counter parties, unless it is mandated by law/regulations.' While there may be no standard template for NPA resolution in large corporate exposures, and each may differ on a case-to-case basis depending on the circumstances and the type of security, the debt-asset swap and option of buyback by RInfra is highly unusual. It is also a matter of concern that the restructured board of directors of Yes Bank accepted the restrictive clauses that challenged Yes Bank's absolute ownership of a property, which presently is its registered office. Stakeholders, bankers and especially the RBI should closely examine the option agreement. It is possible that RInfra may want to exercise its option in the coming years to buy back the premises. If the RBI approves of such buybacks, will such an option be offered to all defaulters, including retail and small and medium enterprises, and not just to large companies with influential promoters? If such an option is permitted to all defaulters, banks will do such deals instead of enforcing security, making a mockery of NPA resolution. Apparently this was the reason why the option agreement between RInfra and Yes Bank to buy back the property was never made public, apart from the mandatory filing with the Sub-Registrar's office. Disclosure: I, Hemindra Kishen Hazari, am a Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) registered independent research analyst (Regd. No. INH000000594). BSE Enlistment No. 5036. Please see SEBI disclosure here. Investment in securities market are subject to market risks. Read all the related documents before investing. Registration granted by SEBI and certification from NISM in no way guarantee performance of the intermediary or provide any assurance of returns to investors. The securities quoted are for illustration only and are not recommendary. I own equity shares in Yes Bank and RInfra. Views expressed in this Insight accurately reflect my personal opinion about the referenced securities and issuers and/or other subject matter as appropriate. This Insight does not contain and is not based on any non-public, material information. To the best of my knowledge, the views expressed in this Insight comply with Indian law as well as applicable law in the country from which it is posted. I have not been commissioned to write this Insight or hold any specific opinion on the securities referenced therein. This Insight is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide financial, investment or other professional advice. It should not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi HC seeks response from Reliance Infra, Shanghai Sinofinn New Energy Investment on Aravali Power's petition
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from Reliance Infrastructure and Shanghai Sinofinn New Energy Investment on a petition by Aravali Power Company , seeking enforcement of the Rs 600-crore arbitral award that it had won against the Anil Ambani firm in December last year. Aravali Power, a joint venture between NTPC , Haryana Power Generation Company Ltd and Indraprastha Power Generation Company, said that Rs 572.62 crore plus interest at the rate of 10% have fallen due as on May 26 and the same may be 'realized by the court' from RInfra and its Chinese associate and released to it. Aravali Power, which operates the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project in Jhajjar district, Haryana, argued that since no interim stay was granted by the HC and the requisite period for RInfra to make an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has also 'elapsed', there is no impediment in the enforcement now. 'In spite of this crystal-clear position, the judgment debtor (RInfra) has not honoured the said arbitral award,' the Aravali Power counsel Adarsh Tripathi and Vikram Singh Baid told the HC. The HC posted Aravali Power's enforcement petition along with the RInfra and the Chinese firm's petition for further hearing on July 28. In March, RInfra had also challenged the December 18 majority arbitral award and sought its quashing on multiple grounds, including denial of natural justice, violation of basic fundamental policy of Indian Law and fundamental principles of justice and denial of proper opportunity to present the case. It alleged that the tribunal had wrongly upheld the termination of the contracts as justified and lawful while awarding various claims in favour of Aravali Power. 'The arbitral tribunal infracted the most fundamental notions or principles of justice by unilaterally altering the contract granted in violation of the contract and without any evidence,' the joint petition by RInfra and its Chinese collaborator had stated. The dispute arises due to the alleged damages suffered by Aravali Power as a direct result of RInfra's and Shanghai Sinofinn's breach of contract relating to the installation of a flue-gas desulfurization system package for the coal-based Jhajjar power plant having a capacity of 3X500 megawatt. In 2016, a memorandum of understanding was entered into between RInfra and Shanghai Sinofinn to provide a framework to develop, undertake and deliver world class environmental protection retrofit projects for control of environmental pollution. Thereafter, licences were granted by Shanghai Sinofinn to RInfra for the non-exclusive right to design, construct, manufacture, use and sell the process and plant for limestone-based flue gas desulfurization systems in India. Aravali Power had issued notification of awards to the Ambani firm and its associate for supply of limestone-based flue gas desulfurization systems package for the Jhajjar project and inland transportation, insurance, installation, testing and commissioning, and conducting guarantee tests for the limestone-based flue gas desulfurization systems package. However, Aravali Power in 2018 served a show cause Notice to RInfra and the Chinese company for alleged incomplete drawings, incomplete bought-out-items ordering, and non-submission of bank guarantee. Alleging breach of contract against RInfra and Chinese company, Aravali Power then issued notice of termination and invoked arbitration in 2018. The Supreme Court appointed three-member arbitral tribunal in a majority award granted a principal amount of Rs 419 crore with Rs 5 crore cost and an interest of Rs 149 crore on the principal amount and future interest on the principal amount till actual date of payment.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Reliance Infra settles ₹273-crore loan of JR Toll Road with Yes Bank
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (RInfra) on Monday said it has fully settled a ₹273-crore loan, including interest, owed by its wholly owned subsidiary JR Toll Road Pvt Ltd (JRTR) to Yes Bank Ltd. In a regulatory filing, the company said JRTR, together with RInfra acting as the corporate guarantor, signed an addendum to the earlier settlement agreement with Yes Bank. The entire debt obligation has been paid in full, discharging RInfra's liability as guarantor. JR Toll Road Pvt Ltd is a special purpose vehicle, incorporated by Reliance Infrastructure, to develop, operate and maintain a 52-km stretch of National Highway 11 between Jaipur and Reengus in Rajasthan. The project had been executed under the Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Transfer (DBFOT) model and involved a four- to six-lane highway. It became operational in 2013, with toll collection beginning the same year. The highway played a strategic role in improving connectivity between Jaipur and surrounding regions, easing congestion, and supporting economic activity in the corridor. It also formed part of Reliance Infrastructure's portfolio of road assets built under public–private partnership frameworks. Why did Yes Bank classify RInfra's loan as an NPA? The ₹273-crore loan from Yes Bank had previously been classified as a non-performing asset (NPA). According to banking regulations, a loan is treated as an NPA if interest or principal payments remain overdue for more than 90 days. In JRTR's case, prolonged financial stress and recurring losses had impaired its ability to meet debt obligations on time. Auditors had noted that the company's current liabilities exceeded its current assets and that it had initiated arbitration proceedings against the National Highways Authority of India in 2023. This dispute had created further uncertainty around revenue flows from the toll project. Although the Reserve Bank of India's pandemic-related moratorium briefly delayed NPA classification, a Delhi High Court ruling in 2020 noted that while the loan account was still standard as of February that year, the company's financial position remained weak. Over time, the account met multiple criteria for NPA classification under the central bank's prudential norms. Following the update, Yes Bank was trading at ₹19.77, up 0.10 per cent on Monday morning at 10:10 am, according to BSE.
