HomeCirculars › RBI/2012-13/139

RBI Eases Rules on Partial Termination of Derivative Contracts

No longer current — withdrawn, no replacement on file yet
Source: Reserve Bank of India · RBI/2012-13/139 · issued 23 Jul 2012 · ~2 min read
Quick answerRBI now allows banks to reduce notional exposure on derivative contracts without treating it as restructuring, provided other parameters stay unchanged. Crystallized MTM can be paid in instalments under board-approved policies, with NPA classification triggered at 90 days overdue.

What changed

Previously, any change in derivative contract parameters was treated as restructuring requiring cash settlement of MTM. Now, partial or full termination to reduce notional exposure is not restructuring if other parameters remain unchanged. Banks can permit instalment payments of crystallized MTM under board-approved policies, with specific NPA and accounting rules.

What it means for you

Banks gain flexibility to help clients reduce hedging exposure without triggering restructuring. Instalment repayment of MTM losses can ease client cash flow, but strict NPA classification at 90 days overdue and reversal of accrued MTM from P&L require careful monitoring. This aligns off-balance sheet exposures with standard credit risk management.

Historical instruction — do not use for current compliance. This is what was required at the time; it no longer reflects current RBI requirements. If no replacement rule is linked above, that only means none is recorded on our register yet — it does not prove no later applicable rule exists. Confirm on the official RBI source below.

What banks were required to do at the time

Who it affects

All scheduled commercial banks (excluding RRBs and LABs), All India term-lending and refinancing institutions, Bank clients with derivative hedging contracts

❓ Common questions

Regulatory timeline

Built from our lineage records — each fact carries its provenance; missing history simply is not shown (never guessed).

Does partial termination of a derivative contract always avoid restructuring treatment?

Yes, if only the notional exposure is reduced and all other parameters of the original contract remain unchanged, it is not treated as restructuring.

What happens if a client misses an instalment payment for crystallized MTM?

If the amount is overdue for 90 days from the due date of that instalment, the entire receivable must be classified as NPA and the MTM reversed from P&L.

Can a client re-hedge the same exposure after termination?

Yes, but only after fully repaying all outstanding instalments of the crystallized MTM from the terminated contract, and subject to extant RBI guidelines on re-booking.

📜 This document’s life story (1 recorded event, each backed by RBI’s own words)
Repealed by RBI/2025-26/100 — Consolidation of Regulations — Withdrawal of circulars (28 Nov 2025)
RBI’s words: “Official withdrawal register entry #1253: DBOD.No.BP.BC.31/21.04.157/2012-13 — "Prudential Norms for Off-balance Sheet Exposures of Banks" dated July 23, 2012”
📜 Read the original circular — full text as issued by RBI
RBI/2012-13/139 DBOD.No.BP.BC.31/21.04.157/2012-13 July 23, 2012 The Chairman and Managing Directors/ Chief Executive Officers of All Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs and LABs) & All India Term-Lending & Refinancing Institutions Dear Sir, Prudential Norms for Off-balance Sheet Exposures of Banks Please refer to our circular DBOD.No.BP.BC.57/21.04.157/2008–09 dated October 13, 2008 , in terms of which, any change in any of the parameters of a derivative contract is treated as restructuring and the mark-to-market (MTM) value of the contract on the date of restructuring should be cash settled. 2. There may be situations where the clients of banks may like to reduce the notional exposure of the hedging derivative contract. In such cases, banks may partially or fully terminate the contract before maturity, at their discretion, thereby reducing the notional exposure of the contract. This reduction in notional exposure would not be treated as re-structuring of the derivative contract provided all other parameters of the original contract remain unchanged. 3. In such cases, if the MTM value of the derivative contract is not cash settled, banks may permit payment in instalments of the crystallized MTM of such derivative contracts (including Forex Forward Contracts), subject to the following conditions: Banks should have a Board approved policy in this regard. Banks should permit repayment in instalments only if there is a reasonable certainty of repayment by the client. The repayment period should not extend beyond the maturity date of the contract. The repayment instalments for the crystallized MTM should be uniformly received over the remaining maturity of the contract and its periodicity should be at least once in a quarter. If the client is permitted to pay the crystallized MTM in instalments and a. if the amount becomes overdue for 90 days from the date of partial / full termination of the derivative contract, the receivable should be classified as NPA. b. if the amount becomes overdue for 90 days from the due date of payment of subsequent instalments, the receivable should be classified as NPA. Banks should reverse the entire MTM which has been taken to Profit and Loss account on accrual basis in case of (v) (a) and (v) (b) above. For the accounting of reversed MTM in these cases, banks should follow an approach similar to the one stipulated in circulars DBOD.No.BP.BC.57/21.04.157/2008-09 dated October 13, 2008 and DBOD.No.BP.BC.28/21.04.157/2011-12 dated August 11, 2011 on ‘Prudential Norms for Off-balance Sheet Exposures of Banks’. Accordingly, the crystallized MTM of these derivative contracts should be reversed from Profit and Loss account and credited to another suspense account styled as ‘Suspense Account - Crystallised Receivables’ . 4. If the client is not granted the facility of paying the crystallised MTM value in instalments and the amount becomes overdue for 90 days from the date of partial / full termination of the derivative contract, the entire receivable should be classified as NPA and banks should follow the instructions stipulated in our circulars dated October 13. 2008 and August 11, 2011, referred to above. 5. There may be cases, where the derivative contract has been terminated, either partially or fully, and crystallized MTM has been permitted to be repaid in instalments but the client subsequently decides to hedge the same underlying exposure again by entering into new contract with same or other bank (provided such re-booking is permissible as per extant RBI guidelines). In such cases, banks may offer derivative contracts to the client provided the client has fully re-paid the entire outstanding instalments corresponding to the derivative contract that was used to hedge the underlying exposure previously. Yours faithfully, (Deepak Singhal) Chief General Manager-in-Charge
Reproduced for reference with acknowledgment — Source: Reserve Bank of India · RBI/2012-13/139 · issued 23 Jul 2012. The plain-English explanation above is BankPulse’s own independent summary.
🧰 Tools — save, print, templates & related

💬 Banker Discussion

Discuss this circular with fellow bankers — reply, upvote what helps, report what doesn’t belong. Be professional; no client data. Views are the commenter’s own, not BankPulse’s.

Loading comments…
BankPulse Compliance Evidence Pack — generated 03 Aug 2026 · status cross-checked against RBI’s official withdrawal register (refreshed weekly).
Official RBI source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=7461&Mode=0 — Plain-English summary by BankPulse (bankpulse.ai), reviewed by our expert reviewer, CA Amit Jain. Independent platform, not affiliated with the Reserve Bank of India; is our own plain-English paraphrase, not RBI’s original wording.
Public beta — plain-English informational summaries. Always verify against the official RBI source (circular number cited on every page) before making compliance, credit, treasury, audit, or operational decisions. · Join our WhatsApp channel ↗