SECURITIZATION AND ASSET RECONSTRUCTION: CHALLENGES AND

REFORMS

(Project towards partial fulfilment of the CA3 assessment in Banking and Finance)

Submitted by Submitted to

Richik Dadhich (1742) Dr. Anand K. Singh

Faculty of Law

National Law University Jodhpur

Winter Semester – 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK: AN INADEQUATE GUIDELINE FOR

SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION IN INDIA...................................................5

LACK OF STANDARDIZATION: CHALLENGES IN ASSESSING UNDERLYING

ASSETS AND RISKS INVOLVED..........................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION OF CREDIT RATING AGENCIES AND EXPANSION OF INVESTOR

BASE........................................................................................................................................10

TACKLING THE ISSUES IN ASSET RECONSTRUCTION...............................................12

CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD...............................................................................15

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................16

Page 2 of 16
 INTRODUCTION

Securitization and reconstruction are crucial components of the financial sector in India. They
are instrumental in enabling the transfer of risk and capital in the market, thereby facilitating
the growth of the economy. Securitization refers to the process of converting illiquid assets
into securities that can be traded in the market. Reconstruction, on the other hand, is the
process of reviving ailing companies through restructuring and rescheduling their debts.1

India has been witnessing rapid growth in securitization and reconstruction activities in recent
years. However, the sector has been grappling with a host of issues and challenges that have
impeded its growth and development. This project aims to examine these challenges and
identify possible solutions to address them.

One of the primary challenges facing the securitization and reconstruction sector in India is
the lack of a well-developed regulatory framework. While the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
has issued guidelines for securitization and asset reconstruction, they are often vague and
open to interpretation.2 This has led to inconsistency in the interpretation and application of
the guidelines, creating a lot of confusion and uncertainty for market participants.

Another issue is the lack of standardization in the securitization process. The absence of
standardized documentation and procedures has made it difficult for investors to assess the
quality of the underlying assets and the risks involved.3 This has led to a lack of confidence in
the market, making it difficult for issuers to attract investors.

In addition to these regulatory and procedural issues, there are also operational challenges
that need to be addressed. For instance, the due diligence process for securitization and
reconstruction transactions is often time-consuming and complex. This has resulted in delays
and increased costs for market participants.

Furthermore, the market for securitization and reconstruction in India is relatively small and
fragmented. This has made it difficult for issuers to achieve economies of scale, resulting in
higher costs and lower profits. The lack of liquidity in the market has also made it difficult
for investors to exit their positions, further dampening their appetite for investment in the
sector.
1
Mahajan, S., & Sharma, S. (2020). Securitization and Reconstruction in India: Issues and Challenges.
International Journal of Scientific Research and Review, 9(2), 128-139.
2
RBI. (2020). Guidelines on Securitisation and Asset Reconstruction of Financial Assets. Retrieved from
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11580&Mode=0.
3
Vashisht, R. K. (2019). Securitization in India: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Business and
Management Studies, 4(2), 18-26.

Page 3 of 16
Finally, there is also the issue of the perception of securitization and reconstruction in India.
Many people view these activities as being akin to debt recovery and hence, unethical. This
has led to a lack of public trust and support for the sector, further hindering its growth and
development.

In light of these challenges, this assignment seeks to explore possible solutions to address
them. This includes identifying areas where regulatory and procedural reforms are necessary,
as well as measures to enhance market standardization and operational efficiency. The project
will also examine ways to increase the size and liquidity of the market, and improve the
perception of securitization and reconstruction in India.

Page 4 of 16
 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK: AN INADEQUATE GUIDELINE FOR
SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION IN INDIA

Securitization and asset reconstruction in India are governed by a regulatory framework that
comprises various laws, guidelines, and regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India
(RBI) and other relevant authorities. However, this framework has been facing several issues
and challenges, primarily due to the lack of clarity and standardization in the guidelines and
regulations.

1. Understanding Securitization of Assets

One of the departures under the RBI (Securitization of Standard Assets) Directions 2021
from the previous regime is with respect to the definition of 'securitization'. The earlier
definition of securitization as laid down in the revised master directions of 2012 specifically
excluded the single assets from being securitized. To understand the counter-productive
nature of securitization of single assets, it is necessary to discuss the objective of
securitization.

One of the major objectives to securitize the assets is to ensure that the risk attached to the
asset is redistributed and spread over a large base of investors so that no single investor or
entity bears all the brunt of default in an underlying loan. The risk borne by the large set of
investors is also greatly offset by pooling and tranching of different assets, which ensures that
during the life of the transaction the risk of default is distributed among the tranches. In
contrast, in single asset securitization, a solitary default has the risk of bringing the castle
down.

This objective is affirmed by the definition of 'securitization' as it exists in the European

Union which maintains 'tranching' and 'pooling' of assets to be crucial to classify any
transaction as securitization. Similarly, the requirement of a transaction to distribute risk
through subordination of tranches ensures that transactions should be structured in such a
manner that a single default does not bring the transaction crashing like a house of cards.

Similarly, the definition of securitization as mentioned in the Basel III norms also provides
that a structure can be classified as a securitization transaction if the cash flow from an
underlying pool of assets is used to service at least two stratified risk positions or tranches
reflecting different degrees of credit risk. The requirement of the tranches to comprise two

Page 5 of 16
different assets is to mitigate the loss in case of default in either of the assets. This can be
further affirmed by the following statement in the Basel III Norms:

“The stratified/tranched structures that characterize securitizations differ from

ordinary senior/subordinated debt instruments in that junior securitization tranches
can absorb losses without interrupting contractual payments to more senior tranches,
whereas subordination in a senior/subordinated debt structure is a matter of priority
of rights to the proceeds of liquidation.”

This was the main reason why single asset securitization was excluded from the definition of
securitization as it is counterintuitive to the objective of risk distribution. This was also
identified by the 2012 Revision of RBI Guidelines on Securitization of Standard Assets.
However, the banking regulator has included single asset securitization within the new
definition. The authors consider this to be counterproductive, as rather than affirming the
trust of investors, this will dissuade them from investing in the secondary market of loans due
to lack of risk distribution, as the entire transaction will fail with a single default leaving the
investors high and dry.

2. Framework For Securitization of Assets

The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 is the primary legislation governing securitization and asset
reconstruction in India.4 The Act empowers banks and financial institutions to recover their
dues from borrowers by taking possession of the secured assets and selling them without the
intervention of the court. The Act also provides for the creation of asset reconstruction
companies (ARCs), which are specialized entities that purchase non-performing assets
(NPAs) from banks and financial institutions and undertake their reconstruction and recovery.

Another issue with the regulatory framework is the absence of a clear definition of what
constitutes a "security interest" under the SARFAESI Act. This has led to disputes over the
classification of assets, with some assets being considered as security interests and others not.
This has created confusion and uncertainty for market participants, making it difficult to
assess the risks involved in securitization and reconstruction transactions.

The RBI has also issued guidelines on securitization and asset reconstruction, which provide
further guidance on the process. However, these guidelines are often vague and open to
4
Securities and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, No. 54,
Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).

Page 6 of 16
interpretation, leading to inconsistencies in the application of the guidelines.5 There is a need
for more specific and detailed guidelines that provide clear instructions on the process and
reduce ambiguity in the interpretation of the rules.

Moreover, the RBI's role in regulating the securitization and reconstruction market in India
needs to be strengthened. Currently, the RBI has limited powers to regulate the market, and
its role is primarily limited to issuing guidelines and conducting inspections. There is a need
for a more proactive approach from the RBI, including the development of a robust
supervisory framework to monitor the securitization and reconstruction market and ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements.

Apart from the SARFAESI Act and the RBI guidelines, other relevant authorities also play a
role in regulating the securitization and reconstruction market in India. These include the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and the
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).6 However, the regulatory framework for
securitization and reconstruction in India is still fragmented, with multiple authorities having
overlapping roles and responsibilities. This has created confusion and a lack of clarity for
market participants, hindering the growth and development of the market.

Thus, the regulatory framework for securitization and reconstruction in India is in need of
reform. While the SARFAESI Act and the RBI guidelines have provided a legal and
regulatory framework for the process, there are several issues that need to be addressed.
These include the lack of clarity in the SARFAESI Act, the absence of a clear definition of
"security interest," and the need for more specific and detailed guidelines from the RBI.
There is also a need for a more proactive approach from the RBI in regulating the
securitization and reconstruction market and developing a robust supervisory framework. The
regulatory framework needs to be strengthened to ensure compliance with regulatory
requirements and promote the growth and development of the securitization and
reconstruction market in India.

5
Reserve Bank of India. (2020). Guidelines on Securitisation and Asset Reconstruction of Financial Assets.
Retrieved from https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11580&Mode=0
6
Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2017). Notification on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Retrieved
from https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/TheInsolvencyandBankruptcyofIndia.pdf.

Page 7 of 16
 LACK OF STANDARDIZATION: CHALLENGES IN ASSESSING UNDERLYING
ASSETS AND RISKS INVOLVED

One of the primary challenges facing the securitization and reconstruction market in India is
the lack of standardization. This is particularly evident in the assessment of underlying assets
and the risks involved in securitization and reconstruction transactions. The lack of
standardization has led to difficulties in assessing the quality of the underlying assets and in
identifying the risks involved, making it difficult for investors to make informed investment
decisions.

The absence of standardization in the securitization and reconstruction market in India can be
attributed to several factors. One of the primary reasons is the fragmented regulatory
framework, which has led to inconsistencies in the application of rules and guidelines. As a
result, different market participants follow different practices, leading to a lack of uniformity
in the securitization and reconstruction process.

Another reason for the lack of standardization is the absence of a central repository for data
on securitization and reconstruction transactions. Without a central repository, it is difficult to
track and analyze the performance of securitized assets, making it challenging to assess the
quality of the underlying assets and the risks involved.

The lack of standardization in the securitization and reconstruction market has several
implications for market participants. For investors, the lack of standardization makes it
challenging to assess the risks involved in securitization and reconstruction transactions. This
can result in mispricing of securities, leading to losses for investors.

For originators, the lack of standardization can result in difficulties in accessing the
securitization and reconstruction market, as investors may be reluctant to invest in securities
with non-standardized structures and terms. This can result in higher costs for originators and
a lower volume of securitization and reconstruction transactions.

To address the issue of lack of standardization in the securitization and reconstruction market,
several measures can be taken. One such measure is the development of a standardized
securitization and reconstruction framework. This framework would establish uniform
standards for the securitization and reconstruction process, including the assessment of
underlying assets and the risks involved. The development of such a framework would

Page 8 of 16
require the cooperation of all stakeholders, including regulators, originators, investors, and
service providers.

Another measure that can be taken to address the issue of lack of standardization is the
establishment of a central repository for data on securitization and reconstruction
transactions. This repository would allow for the tracking and analysis of the performance of
securitized assets, making it easier to assess the quality of the underlying assets and the risks
involved.

In conclusion, the lack of standardization in the securitization and reconstruction market in

India poses significant challenges for market participants. The absence of uniform standards
for the securitization and reconstruction process, including the assessment of underlying
assets and the risks involved, makes it difficult for investors to make informed investment
decisions. To address this issue, measures such as the development of a standardized
framework and the establishment of a central repository for data can be taken. These
measures would help to promote uniformity in the securitization and reconstruction market
and facilitate the growth and development of the market in India.

One example of a standardized framework is the recently introduced guidelines on

securitization and reconstruction of financial assets by the Securities and Exchange Board of
India (SEBI).7 The guidelines aim to standardize the securitization process by providing
uniform guidelines for the securitization process and ensuring greater transparency and
disclosure requirements. Similarly, the Reserve Bank of India has also introduced guidelines
on securitization and asset reconstruction of financial assets, which provide for the
standardization of securitization and asset reconstruction transactions.8

7
Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2021). Guidelines on Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets. Retrieved from https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/nov-2021/guidelines-on-securitisation-and-
reconstruction-of-financial-assets_52932.html
8
Reserve Bank of India. (2020). Guidelines on Securitisation and Asset Reconstruction of Financial Assets.
Retrieved from https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11580&Mode=0

Page 9 of 16
 INTRODUCTION OF CREDIT RATING AGENCIES AND EXPANSION OF
INVESTOR BASE

The introduction of credit rating agencies and the expansion of the investor base have been
significant developments in the Indian financial market in recent years. These developments
have had a profound impact on the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets in the
country.

Credit rating agencies play a critical role in securitization and reconstruction transactions by
assigning ratings to the securities issued by these transactions. These ratings reflect the
creditworthiness of the underlying assets and provide investors with an idea of the risks
involved in investing in these securities. The ratings assigned by credit rating agencies have a
significant impact on the pricing of these securities and, therefore, play a crucial role in
determining the success of these transactions.9

The introduction of credit rating agencies in India has been a relatively recent development.
The first credit rating agency in the country, the Credit Rating Information Services of India
Limited (CRISIL), was established in 1987.10 Since then, several other credit rating agencies
have entered the market, including ICRA Limited, CARE Ratings Limited, and India Ratings
and Research Private Limited. These agencies have played a critical role in the growth of
securitization and reconstruction transactions in the country.

The expansion of the investor base has also been an essential development for securitization
and reconstruction transactions in India. Traditionally, these transactions were mainly
targeted towards institutional investors, such as banks and financial institutions. However, in
recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of retail investors
participating in these transactions. This increase in retail participation has been driven by the
introduction of mutual fund schemes that invest in securitized debt instruments and the
growing popularity of alternative investment options such as peer-to-peer lending platforms.

The expansion of the investor base has led to a significant increase in demand for securitized
debt instruments, which has, in turn, led to an increase in the volume of securitization
transactions in the country. According to a report by ICRA Limited, the volume of

9
KPMG India, "Securitisation in India: Evolving Challenges and Opportunities," (Mumbai: KPMG, 2020).
10
Credit Rating Information Services of India Limited, "CRISIL: About Us," (Mumbai: CRISIL, n.d.).

Page 10 of 16
securitization transactions in India increased from INR 15,000 crore in 2015 to INR 70,000
crore in 2019, a CAGR of 45%.11

The relevance of credit rating agencies and the expansion of the investor base for
securitization and reconstruction transactions in India cannot be overstated. These
developments have brought about significant changes in the way these transactions are
structured and executed. One of the key benefits of these developments is the reduction in the
cost of capital for issuers of securitized debt instruments. This reduction in the cost of capital
has been driven by the increased demand for these instruments, which has led to a decrease in
the spreads between the yield on the securitized debt instruments and the underlying assets.12

However, there are also challenges associated with the introduction of credit rating agencies
and the expansion of the investor base. One of the significant challenges is the lack of
standardization in the securitization market. The absence of a standardized framework for
securitization transactions makes it difficult for investors to assess the risks involved in
investing in these transactions. This lack of standardization can lead to a mismatch between
the ratings assigned by credit rating agencies and the actual creditworthiness of the
underlying assets.13

Another challenge associated with the expansion of the investor base is the need for greater
transparency in securitization transactions. The increase in retail participation has led to a
growing demand for transparency and disclosure of information about these transactions.
Investors need access to reliable information about the underlying assets, the structure of the
transaction, and the risks involved in investing in these transactions. The lack of transparency
can lead to a lack of trust in these transactions, which can lead to a decrease in demand for
securitized debt instruments.

11
Souvik Ganguly, "Securitization in India - An Overview," IIM Raipur Blog, November 28, 2019,
https://iimraipur.edu.in/blog/securitization-in-india-an-overview/.
12
Supra note 9.
13
Id.

Page 11 of 16
 TACKLING THE ISSUES IN ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) were set up in India with the primary objective of
dealing with non-performing assets (NPAs) of banks and financial institutions. The
introduction of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act in 2002 paved the way for the establishment of ARCs in
the country. The objective was to tackle the issue of NPAs and enable banks to recover their
bad debts. However, ARCs in India have been grappling with several challenges that have
impeded their ability to function effectively.

One of the major challenges faced by ARCs is the difficulty in assessing the value of
underlying assets. ARCs acquire NPAs from banks and financial institutions at a discounted
price, and the value of these assets depends on the level of recovery that the ARCs can
achieve. However, the valuation of these assets is often difficult due to the lack of
transparency in the underlying asset and the absence of a standardized valuation
mechanism.14

Another significant challenge faced by ARCs is the lack of clarity on the regulatory
framework. Although the SARFAESI Act provides the legal framework for the functioning
of ARCs, there is a lack of clarity on several aspects such as the role of ARCs in resolution of
stressed assets, the treatment of regulatory forbearance, and the guidelines for the functioning
of ARCs. The absence of a well-defined regulatory framework has resulted in a lack of
investor confidence in the sector, thereby limiting the growth of the ARC market.

1. Reforms introduced by the government

The funding model for ARCs has also been a challenge in the sector. The majority of the
funding for ARCs comes from banks and financial institutions, and there is a limited
participation from non-institutional investors. The lack of a diversified investor base has
made it difficult for ARCs to raise capital, resulting in a limited pool of funds to acquire
NPAs.

The resolution of stressed assets by ARCs has also been a challenge in India. The resolution
process in India has been plagued by delays, and this has resulted in a lack of confidence in
the ability of ARCs to resolve stressed assets in a timely manner. The lengthy resolution

14
Pavan, R. K., & Vasudev, N. (2016). Asset reconstruction companies in India: An overview. International
Journal of Research in Commerce, Economics and Management, 6(10), 26-31.

Page 12 of 16
process has also resulted in a loss of value for the underlying asset, thereby reducing the
recovery rate for banks and financial institutions.

In recent years, the government has taken several measures to address these challenges faced
by ARCs. The introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2016 was a
significant step towards resolving the issue of NPAs in India. The IBC provides a time-bound
resolution process for stressed assets and has been instrumental in improving the recovery
rate for banks and financial institutions.

The government has also introduced several reforms to improve the functioning of ARCs. In
2017, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued guidelines for the functioning of ARCs,
providing clarity on several aspects such as the role of ARCs in resolution of stressed assets,
the treatment of regulatory forbearance, and the guidelines for the functioning of ARCs. The
guidelines have been instrumental in improving the regulatory framework for ARCs, thereby
improving investor confidence in the sector.15

The government has also allowed 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) in ARCs, which has
provided a much-needed impetus to the sector. The entry of foreign investors has brought in a
new source of funding for ARCs, thereby providing a more diversified investor base.

2. Addressing the challenges in the ARC sector

While ARCs have been instrumental in resolving the issue of NPAs in India, the sector has
faced several challenges that have impeded its growth. The lack of transparency in the
valuation of underlying assets, the absence of a well-defined regulatory framework, the
funding model, and the lengthy resolution process have all been challenges faced by the
sector. However, the government has taken several measures to address these challenges and
improve the functioning of ARCs. The introduction of the IBC and the RBI guidelines have
been instrumental in improving the regulatory framework for ARCs. The entry of foreign
investors has provided a much-needed source of funding and a more diversified investor base
for ARCs.

Furthermore, the government has also introduced reforms to address the challenge of lack of
transparency in the valuation of underlying assets. The introduction of the Indian Accounting
Standards (Ind AS) has provided a standardized framework for the valuation of assets,
thereby improving transparency in the valuation process. ARCs are now required to follow

Reserve Bank of India. (2014). Guidelines on sale of financial assets to asset reconstruction companies.
15

Retrieved from https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=9318&Mode=0.

Page 13 of 16
Ind AS for the valuation of assets, which has led to a more standardized valuation
mechanism.

Another significant reform introduced by the government is the Asset Management Company
(AMC) model. Under this model, ARCs can set up an AMC to manage the NPAs acquired by
them.16 The AMC model provides a professional and efficient platform for the resolution of
stressed assets and has been instrumental in improving the recovery rate for banks and
financial institutions.

Despite these reforms, there are still several challenges that need to be addressed in the ARC
sector. One of the major challenges is the lengthy resolution process, which often results in a
loss of value for the underlying asset.17 The government needs to introduce measures to
expedite the resolution process and ensure a timely resolution of stressed assets.

Another challenge faced by ARCs is the lack of participation from non-institutional investors.
The government needs to introduce measures to encourage participation from non-
institutional investors, thereby providing a more diversified investor base for ARCs.

Thus, the introduction of ARCs in India has been instrumental in resolving the issue of NPAs
in the banking sector. However, the sector has faced several challenges that have impeded its
growth. The lack of transparency in the valuation of underlying assets, the absence of a well-
defined regulatory framework, the funding model, and the lengthy resolution process have all
been challenges faced by the sector. The government has taken several measures to address
these challenges and improve the functioning of ARCs. The reforms introduced by the
government, such as the introduction of the IBC, the RBI guidelines, and the AMC model,
have been instrumental in improving the regulatory framework for ARCs. However, there is
still more that needs to be done to address the challenges faced by the sector and ensure its
continued growth and success.

16
Shukla, R., & Banerjee, S. (2016). Asset reconstruction companies in India: An analysis of performance and
prospects. Global Business Review, 17(2_suppl), 203S-214S.
17
Id.

Page 14 of 16
 CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

Securitization plays an integral role in the period following recovery from pandemic by
infusing liquidity into the market and freeing up banks resources for facilitating the credit
disbursal. In this context, the proactive steps taken by RBI to revitalize the securitization
regime are welcomed by the authors. However, there remain some creases to be ironed out
for establishing a robust and stable framework.

Despite being well intentioned, RBI goes overboard by relaxing the definition of
securitization beyond necessary. In this pursuit, the banking regulator fails to conform to the
fundamental objectives of securitization by ignoring the risk mitigation aspect of
securitization and throwing caution to the wind.

The introduction of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act and the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) guidelines have
been instrumental in improving the regulatory framework for securitization and asset
reconstruction. However, there are still several challenges that need to be addressed to ensure
the continued growth and success of the sector.

One of the significant challenges faced by securitization and asset reconstruction is the lack
of standardization in assessing underlying assets and risks involved. The government needs to
introduce measures to standardize the valuation mechanism and improve transparency in the
valuation process. Credit rating agencies can also play a vital role in this regard by providing
an independent assessment of the underlying assets' quality and risks involved.

The Asset Management Company model has also been instrumental in improving the
recovery rate for banks and financial institutions. Going forward, there is a need to introduce
further reforms to address the challenges faced by the securitization and asset reconstruction
sector.

Page 15 of 16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Online authorities

- RBI. (2020). Guidelines on Securitisation and Asset Reconstruction of Financial Assets.

Retrieved from https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11580&Mode=0.

- Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2017). Notification on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016. Retrieved from
https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/TheInsolvencyandBankruptcyofIndia.pdf.

- Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2021). Guidelines on Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets. Retrieved from
https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/nov-2021/guidelines-on-securitisation-and-
reconstruction-of-financial-assets_52932.html

- KPMG India, "Securitisation in India: Evolving Challenges and Opportunities," (Mumbai:

KPMG, 2020).

- Credit Rating Information Services of India Limited, "CRISIL: About Us," (Mumbai:
CRISIL, n.d.).

- Souvik Ganguly, "Securitization in India - An Overview," IIM Raipur Blog, November 28,
2019, https://iimraipur.edu.in/blog/securitization-in-india-an-overview/.

Journal Articles

- Mahajan, S., & Sharma, S. (2020). Securitization and Reconstruction in India: Issues and
Challenges. International Journal of Scientific Research and Review, 9(2), 128-139.

- Vashisht, R. K. (2019). Securitization in India: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of

Business and Management Studies, 4(2), 18-26.

Statutes

- Securities and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, No. 54, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).

Page 16 of 16