RBI Cancels 5 NBFC CoRs and 8 Surrendered Registrations: Why the Two Lists Differ

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) published two separate notices on 17 September 2026 affecting 13 non-banking financial company (NBFC) registration records, but the two notices should not be read as one enforcement list. In its five-company Certificate of Registration cancellation notice, RBI names the companies and their cancellation order dates but does not state why their registrations were cancelled. In a separate eight-company surrender notice, the regulator says the NBFCs surrendered their Certificates of Registration (CoRs) and then groups them by the reason registration was no longer required.

That distinction matters for accountants, auditors, lenders and counterparties checking an entity's regulatory status. A cancelled CoR is not, by itself, evidence of fraud or customer harm. In the surrender list, RBI expressly describes business-exit, classification and legal-entity reasons. In the five-company list, the release establishes cancellation but leaves the reason unstated.

September 17 is the publication date, not the cancellation date

Both releases were published on 17 September, while the individual cancellation dates fall in August. For due diligence, that chronology is important: a search result or news date should not be substituted for the effective cancellation date recorded by RBI.

The five-company notice lists the following cancellation order dates:

• Dar's Financial Services Pvt Ltd — 3 August 2026.
• Rolta Holding and Finance Corporation Private Limited — 6 August 2026.
• Vasudeo Securities Pvt Ltd — 6 August 2026.
• Parsoli Corporation Limited — 18 August 2026.
• A. C. Choksi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. — 31 August 2026. RBI's notice also records the MCA name as Deus Financial Capital Private Limited.

RBI says these five companies shall not transact the business of a non-banking financial institution as defined in Section 45-I(a) of the RBI Act, 1934. The notice does not publish the factual ground for each cancellation, so it would be wrong to describe the list as a finding of misconduct unless another authoritative order establishes that separately.

The eight surrender cases fall into four different categories

The second notice is more explanatory. RBI says eight NBFCs surrendered their CoRs and that it cancelled those registrations under Section 45-IA(6). It then separates the cases into four categories:

• Exit from NBFI business: Anupam Mercantile Limited, Grand Motor and Finance Private Limited, Sky Limit International Finance Limited and ASA International India Microfinance Limited.
• Unregistered Core Investment Company status not requiring registration: Anagram Industries Limited.
• Unregistered Type I NBFC status not requiring registration: CDN Finance Private Limited. The RBI release specifically says the Type I category referred to here is not availing public funds and has no customer interface.
• Ceasing to be a legal entity: Shivam Securities Private Limited and April Investment and Finance Private Limited. RBI groups these cases under amalgamation, merger, dissolution, voluntary strike-off or similar events, but the release does not say which specific mechanism applies to each company.

The cancellation dates in this surrender list also pre-date the press release: 4 August for Anupam Mercantile, 18 August for Grand Motor and Finance, 19 August for Sky Limit International Finance, 31 August for ASA International India Microfinance, 18 August for Anagram Industries, 20 August for CDN Finance, 18 August for Shivam Securities and 24 August for April Investment and Finance.

Why this matters for audit and regulatory due diligence

RBI has long clarified that a CoR is intended for a company actually carrying on non-banking financial institution business; the background principle appears in its master circular on continuation of NBFI business and CoR status. The September surrender notice shows why an NBFC can leave the registered population for reasons that are not disciplinary, including exiting NBFI business or meeting a category for which registration is not required.

For statutory audit work, the same distinction is relevant when testing whether registration is required in the first place. CA Samaaj's CARO 2020 Clause 3(xvi) guide on NBFC, HFC and CIC registration explains why the audit analysis should separately consider the requirement to register, whether financial activity was carried on without a valid CoR, and whether Core Investment Company conditions apply.

There is also a name-matching point for compliance databases. The five-company RBI notice records A. C. Choksi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. with the MCA name Deus Financial Capital Private Limited. A due-diligence process that searches only one legal name can therefore miss a relevant regulatory record.

The safest reading of the 17 September releases is narrow and evidence-based: update the regulatory-status trail using the cancellation dates recorded by RBI, distinguish a surrendered CoR from a cancellation notice that gives no reason, and avoid inferring misconduct where the regulator has not stated it. Where a company is relying on an unregistered classification, the underlying eligibility should be tested against the current RBI framework rather than assumed from the absence of a CoR.

Official source: View the official source document