Important StoriesSupreme Court rules YES Bank's AT1 bond write-off illegalSTT collection surges 52% in FY27 amid market volatility; net direct tax collection grows 13%India’s September exports jump 23% to $44.4 billion; trade deficit narrows to $30.2 billionKochi Port set to cruise into the future of AI immigrationIndia says first phase of US trade deal finalisedFollow UsFOLLOW US ON WHATSAPPHomeGO BACK TO HOME THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS. THIS AD SUPPORTS OUR JOURNALISM. SUBSCRIBE FOR MINIMAL ADS. SC upholds Bombay HC order quashing Yes Bank AT-1 write-off Liability may exceed ₹13,000 crore; shares plunge 14.43 per cent By BL Mumbai Bureau Updated - October 15, 2026 at 09:22 PM. | Mumbai ×ShareWhatsAppXFacebookLinkedInMessengerRedditMailhttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/sc-upholds-bombay-hc-order-quashing-yes-bank-at-1-write-off/article71589079.eceCopy Legal experts said the lender has limited legal options left, with the likelihood of success in a review petition appearing remote. | Photo Credit: AINNIE ARIF

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Bombay High Court’s 2023 judgment quashing Yes Bank’s March 14, 2020 decision to write down Basel III-compliant Additional Tier-I (AT-1) bonds worth ₹8,415 crore, dealing a major setback to the private lender and potentially opening the door to significant payouts to bondholders.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih dismissed appeals challenging the Bombay High Court verdict in the Axis Trustee Services Ltd. versus Yes Bank case. “We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated,” the court said.

The bench also clarified that annual coupon payments on the AT-1 bonds, carrying interest rates of 9.5 per cent on ₹3,000 crore issued in December 2016 and 9 per cent on ₹5,415 crore issued in October 2017, would remain unaffected and must be paid in accordance with the bonds’ Information Memoranda.

Legal experts said the lender has limited legal options left, with the likelihood of success in a review petition appearing remote.

“The liability could exceed ₹13,000-14,000 crore, including interest. The impact is likely to be absorbed through reserves and shareholders’ funds rather than the profit and loss account, effectively transferring the burden to existing shareholders. While the judgment brings finality to the dispute, it may also reshape investor perception of AT-1 instruments and their risk profile in India,” a banking sector expert said.

Banking expert V Viswanathan highlighted that Yes Bank has strong shareholders’ funds of ₹52,338 crore as of June-end 2026, indicating that the bank could meet the liability from reserves, subject to RBI approval.

“The bank can pay bondholders from its reserves after obtaining RBI approval, as its annual net profit is sufficient. It will also have to pay the contracted interest for the years in which it reported net profits. In that case, the liability will be higher,” he said.

The judgment was particularly critical of what it termed the “triumvirate” of Yes Bank, the Reserve Bank of India and the bank’s then administrator.

The court held that only two parties could trigger an AT-1 bond write-down under the Information Memorandum and RBI norms: Yes Bank, which did not exercise the option, or the RBI, which neither invoked the power nor retained the relevant write-down clause. The bench said the Administrator could not assume RBI’s regulatory role and termed the actions of RBI, the Administrator and Yes Bank as “questionable.”

The judges said investor losses could have been avoided had RBI and Yes Bank followed the Master Circular, adding that AT-1 bonds are meant to act as a capital buffer during stress. The court also criticised RBI for being a “mere bystander” while Yes Bank’s CET-1 ratio fell to 0.6 per cent against the prescribed 7.375 per cent.

Investor concerns over the financial fallout of the ruling hit the stock, with Yes Bank shares falling 14.4 per cent to ₹18.15 on the BSE, after touching an intraday low of ₹16.98, amid fears of compensation and coupon payout liabilities.

The judges observed that under the Information Memorandum and RBI’s Master Circular, there were only two triggers for writing down or writing off the AT-1 bonds. “The first was for Yes Bank to exercise, which it admittedly did not. The second was for the RBI to exercise, which not only expressed its intention not to do so by eliminating the clause providing for a write-down, but also chose not to exercise the power at all. The Administrator could not have assumed the regulatory role of the RBI and exercised a power that it did not possess,” the bench said.

The court further remarked that the RBI, the Administrator and Yes Bank had acted in a manner that was, “to put it mildly, questionable.”

“Putting investors at such uncalled-for risk could have been avoided. The purpose of AT-1 bonds is critical, as they act as a safety buffer preventing a bank from collapsing altogether. That purpose could have been served had the RBI and Yes Bank acted in accordance with the provisions of the Master Circular,” the judges said.

The bench also criticised the RBI for being a “mere bystander” while Yes Bank’s CET-1 ratio fell to 0.6 per cent against the prescribed 7.375 per cent, adding that making investors bear the consequences of administrative lapses would be “highly unfair.”

Investor concerns about the financial impact of the ruling put pressure on the stock. Yes Bank shares plunged 14.43 per cent to close at ₹18.15 on the BSE from ₹21.21 previously and touched an intraday low of ₹16.98 as markets assessed the lender’s potential obligation to compensate bondholders and pay accrued coupons.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber