 "Paytm")
Shares of One97 Communications (OCL), the parent firm of Paytm, were locked in the 5-per cent upper circuit at Rs 370.90 on the BSE in Friday's intraday trade after the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) granted approval to the fintech firm to participate in UPI as a Third-Party Application Provider (TPAP) under multi-bank model.
Nearly 5 million shares have cumulatively changed hands on the NSE and BSE, and there are pending buy orders for another 2.4 million shares. In comparison, the S&P BSE Sensex was down 0.54 per cent at 72,703 at 9:50 AM.
OCL, in an exchange filing, said that four banks -- Axis Bank, HDFC Bank, State Bank of India, and YES Bank -- shall act as PSP (Payment System Provider) banks to the company.
YES Bank shall also be acting as merchant acquiring bank for existing and new UPI merchants for OCL. "@Paytm” handle shall be redirected to YES Bank. This will enable existing users and merchants to continue to do UPI transactions and AutoPay mandates in a seamless and uninterrupted manner," the company said.
OCL has been advised to complete migration for all existing handles and mandates, wherever required, to new PSP banks at the earliest.
Also Read
The NPCI's decision comes a day ahead of the Reserve Bank of India's deadline asking customers and merchants of Paytm Payments Bank Ltd (PPBL) to shift their accounts to other banks by March 15.
Paytm is India's leading digital ecosystem for consumers and merchants. It offers payment services, commerce and cloud services, and financial services (mainly loan distribution) to 333 million consumers and over 20 million merchants.
On the bourses, shares of Paytm had hit a record low of Rs 318.35 on February 16 after RBI ordered PPBL to stop accepting deposits and credit transactions after February 29, which was later extended to March 15. The stock had hit a 52-week high of Rs 998.30 on October 20, 2023.
On January 31, the RBI said that the comprehensive system audit report and subsequent compliance validation report of external auditors revealed persistent non-compliance at PPBL and continued material supervisory concerns in the bank, warranting further supervisory action.
