YES Bank has approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its judgment overturning the lender's decision to write down Additional Tier-1 (AT-1) bonds worth ₹8,415 crore during its 2020 reconstruction.
In an exchange filing on Friday, the private sector bank said it had submitted a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, challenging the court's Oct 15, 2026, judgment.
The Supreme Court had upheld a January 2023 Bombay High Court ruling that invalidated the complete write-down of the bonds.
The dispute involves two AT-1 bond issuances. YES Bank raised ₹3,000 crore in December 2016 at a coupon rate of 9.5%, followed by ₹5,415 crore in October 2017 carrying a 9% coupon.
The lender wrote down both instruments in March 2020 during a reconstruction exercise initiated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
At the time, YES Bank faced mounting bad loans, governance concerns and financial instability.
Axis Trustee Services, representing affected bondholders, challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court in May 2020.
The High Court ruled in favour of bondholders in January 2023, with the Supreme Court subsequently upholding that decision.
The apex court also held that annual coupon payments must follow the respective information memorandums, irrespective of the appeals' outcome.
Following the judgment, Axis Trustee Services sought restoration of the bonds and associated investor rights.
The trustee also requested corresponding changes to depository and exchange records and indicated that contempt proceedings could follow alleged non-compliance.
The ruling carries potential implications for YES Bank's capital position.
The lender previously estimated that reinstating the principal amount could reduce its Common Equity Tier-1 (CET1) capital ratio by approximately 250 basis points, based on its June 2026 financial position.
However, the bank indicated that its overall Tier-1 capital ratio would not face the same impact.
The review petition now seeks reconsideration of the judgment, leaving the dispute over the bonds' treatment before the Supreme Court.
