9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 828 - HC - Indian LawsScope of Deposit for the purpose of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - Whether the definition of deposit under section 2(c) of the MPID Act covers in its fold inter corporate deposits and can the MPID Act be said to have been enacted to protect the interest of the corporate depositors as well? HELD THAT - The MPID Act and the enactments passed by the other State Legislatures were with the avowed object of protecting the interest of the depositors. The Legislatures had noticed a pattern of collecting money or deposits from unsuspecting investors after painting a rosy picture of return. The Legislature, thus, provided a special mechanism of attachment of properties and unearthing the money which was swindled so as to ensure that the investors are not left in the lurch by such unscrupulous persons and financial establishments. The legislative prescription, needs to be carefully appreciated in the backdrop of the object of the MPID Act. Indubitably, the MPID Act does not make a distinction between the corporate and ordinary deposit. In fact, the MPID Act only defines deposit . It does not define depositor . Albiet, section 4 of the Act provides for issuance of an order of attachment of the properties on default in return of deposits upon complaints received from the depositors or otherwise. The constitutional validity of the MPID Act has been upheld, including the legislative competence of the State legislature to enact MPID Act. We are also conscious of the fact that it is neither permissible, nor do we propose, to delve into the said aspect of the matter. Thus, the inter corporate deposit/loan, i.e., a loan advanced / deposit made by a company with another company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act would not amount to a deposit within the meaning and for the purpose of the MPID Act. It is hereby declared that the inter corporate deposit/loan, i.e., a loan advanced/deposit made by a company with another company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956/2013 would not amount to a deposit within the meaning and for the purpose of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Whether inter-corporate deposits/loans fall within the definition of "deposit" under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act). 2. The applicability of MPID Act provisions to inter-corporate deposits. 3. The legal standing (locus) of the petitioner to challenge the inclusion of inter-corporate deposits under the MPID Act. 4. The impact of the Companies Act, 1956/2013 and related rules on the interpretation of "deposit" under the MPID Act. 5. The constitutional validity and legislative competence of the MPID Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition of "Deposit" under MPID Act: The core issue was whether inter-corporate deposits/loans qualify as "deposits" under the MPID Act. The court examined the expansive definition of "deposit" in Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, which includes any receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity by a financial establishment to be returned after a specified period or otherwise. However, it excludes certain amounts, such as those raised by way of share capital, debentures, bonds, amounts received from scheduled banks, and others listed in sub-clauses (i) to (vii). 2. Applicability of MPID Act to Inter-Corporate Deposits: The petitioner argued that inter-corporate deposits are governed by the Companies Act and are explicitly excluded from the definition of "deposit" under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014. The court noted that inter-corporate deposits are excluded from the term "deposit" under both the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013, and the Rules framed thereunder. The court emphasized that the MPID Act was enacted to protect small and unsuspecting depositors, not corporate entities capable of making informed business decisions. 3. Petitioner's Legal Standing (Locus): The respondent argued that the petitioner lacked the locus to challenge the inclusion of inter-corporate deposits since no property of the petitioner was attached. However, the court recognized the petitioner's locus, as the petitioner was arraigned as an accused in the MPID case, and a significant legal issue was raised. 4. Impact of Companies Act on MPID Act Interpretation: The court analyzed the legislative history and provisions of the Companies Act, 1956/2013, and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules. It noted that these laws regulate the acceptance of deposits by companies and exclude inter-corporate deposits from their purview. The court highlighted that the Companies Act and the Rules framed thereunder occupy the field of inter-corporate deposits, and the MPID Act was not intended to override these provisions. 5. Constitutional Validity and Legislative Competence: The court referred to previous judgments upholding the constitutional validity of the MPID Act and similar enactments in other states. It emphasized that the MPID Act was enacted to protect the interests of small depositors from fraudulent financial establishments. The court concluded that the legislative intent was not to regulate business transactions between companies under the MPID Act. Conclusion: The court held that inter-corporate deposits/loans do not amount to "deposits" within the meaning of the MPID Act. Consequently, inter-corporate deposits made with financial establishments in the case leading to MPID Special Case No.4 of 2014 should not be considered for prosecution and proceedings under the MPID Act. The court directed the financial establishments to deposit the balance amount towards the liability of individual/non-corporate depositors before working out their remedies regarding attachment orders issued under the MPID Act. Disposition: The petition was allowed, declaring that inter-corporate deposits/loans do not fall within the definition of "deposit" under the MPID Act. The court disposed of Criminal Application No. 385 of 2019 concerning intervenors, noting that the order does not affect claims related to bills of exchange.
|
