Question
Under Section 23 of the Payment and Settlement Systems
Act, 2007, a large commercial bank, Bank Y, participates in a Clearing Corporation's net settlement system. On a particular settlement date, the Clearing Corporation determines that Bank Y owes ₹500 crores to the system after netting. That same evening, before actual payment is made, Bank Y is placed under moratorium by the RBI. The next morning, a liquidator is appointed, and Bank Y's creditors demand that the settlement determination be reopened on grounds that actual funds were not transferred. Which of the following correctly applies Section 23(3) to this scenario?Solution
Explanation: Section 23(3) of the PSSA, 2007 provides: "A settlement effected under such procedure shall be final and irrevocable." This is further clarified by Explanation 1 to Section 23: "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the settlement, whether gross or net, referred to in this section is final and irrevocable as soon as the money, securities, foreign exchange or derivatives or other transactions payable as a result of such settlement is determined, whether or not such money, securities or foreign exchange or derivatives or other transactions is actually paid." The statute is explicit: finality attaches to the determination, not to actual payment. The language "whether or not such money...is actually paid" specifically negates the argument that finality depends on physical transfer. Section 23(6) additionally provides: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the...Companies Act, 2013 or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or any other law for the time being in force, the liquidator or receiver...shall not re-open any determination that has become final and irrevocable." This creates an express statutory override of insolvency law. Bank Y's moratorium and liquidation do NOT reopen the settlement. The Clearing Corporation's determination becomes final and irrevocable at the moment of determination, protecting payment system integrity. Thus, option (B) correctly applies Section 23(3) and Explanation 1
- 'A' invested Rs. 9,000 in a business. After 5 months, 'A' reduced the investment by Rs. 2,000 and 'B' joined with Rs. 12,000. At the end of 20 months from ...
A, B and C invested in a business in the ratio 6:8:9. If B invested for a period whose numerical value is 112.5% of B’s investment but A and C inv...
Paras and Punit started a business by investing Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 24,000 respectively. Paras also worked as the active manager and for that he is entit...
A starts a business with Rs 12000. After 6 months B joins with Rs. 9000. After 2 years, what will be the ratio of the profit of A and B?
Atul and Brijesh started a business by investing Rs 16,000 and Rs 20,000 respectively. At the end of 4th month of the business, Chetan joins ...
- P and Q started a business with Rs. 6000 and Rs. 7500 respectively. Q remained in the business 4 months longer than P. If P received Rs. 1800 from the tota...
A and B invested Rs. 3600 and Rs. 4800 in a business. After 2 months, C joined with Rs. ‘x’. If A’s profit share in the total annual profit of Rs....
Raj invested Rs.36000 in a business. After 6 months, Rohan joins him with an investment of Rs.P. If at the end of the year the profit is Rs.52000 and pr...
X and Y started a business by investing Rs. 1600 and Rs. 2400 respectively. After 4 months, Y withdrew his money and Z joined with an investment of Rs. ...
A and B started a business by investing Rs.8000 and Rs.11000 respectively. After 6 months A withdrew 50% of his investment. If at the end of the year, p...