1. Commodity spot exchange — Attachment of properties under Section 4, MPID Act — Dispute over whether the exchange constitutes a financial establishment accepting deposits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 372
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Bela M Trivedi, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
63 Moons Technologies Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2748-49 of 2022 with Civil Appeal Nos. 2750-51 of 2022
Decided on : 22-04-2022
Important Points
The Court held that the definition of 'deposit' under the MPID Act is broad and inclusive, encompassing the receipt of money and valuable commodities (including agricultural ones) returned as services or cash, regardless of assured returns, thereby qualifying NSEL as a 'financial establishment'.
Subject
Financial Law - Regulatory Compliance
Act Referred
BANKING REGULATIONS ACT: S.5(c)
CHIT FUNDS ACT: S.2(b)
COMPANIES ACT: S.209(a), S.396
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.19, Art.300(a), Art.21, Art.226
FORWARD CONTRACTS REGULATION ACT: S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.409, S.465, S.468, S.471, S.474, S.477(a), S.467
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA ACT: S.6
MAHARASHTRA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT: S.3, S.4(1), S.5, S.8, S.2(c), S.4, S.2(d)
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT: S.2
TAMIL NADU ACT: S.2(2)
CHIT FUNDS ACT: S.2(b)
COMPANIES ACT: S.209(a), S.396
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.19, Art.300(a), Art.21, Art.226
FORWARD CONTRACTS REGULATION ACT: S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.409, S.465, S.468, S.471, S.474, S.477(a), S.467
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA ACT: S.6
MAHARASHTRA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT: S.3, S.4(1), S.5, S.8, S.2(c), S.4, S.2(d)
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT: S.2
TAMIL NADU ACT: S.2(2)
Headnote
(A) Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act) - Sections 2(c), 2(d), 4, and 5 - Constitutional validity challenged - Bombay High Court quashed notifications attaching properties under Section 4 of MPID Act, finding NSEL not a financial establishment accepting deposits - Court found NSEL accepted monetary transactions and commodities without requisite assurances; defined 'deposit' includes both money and valuable commodities to be returned after a specified period - Established NSEL constitutes a 'financial establishment' under MPID Act. (Paras 30, 31, 32, 58, 66)
(B) Financial Establishments - Definitions and scope under the Act - Clarified that a 'deposit' may be returned in various forms not limited to cash and requires broader statutory interpretation, focusing on the protection of depositors' interests
(C)
Findings of Court:
The attachments under the MPID Act are valid as NSEL accepted deposits contrary to its assertions, thus liable under the provisions of the Act.
(D)
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Financial Establishments - Definitions and scope under the Act - Clarified that a 'deposit' may be returned in various forms not limited to cash and requires broader statutory interpretation, focusing on the protection of depositors' interests
(C)
Findings of Court:
The attachments under the MPID Act are valid as NSEL accepted deposits contrary to its assertions, thus liable under the provisions of the Act.
(D)
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- maintainability (Para 65)
-
writ jurisdiction
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Jahnvi Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Rawat, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advocate, Mr. Bhushan Shah, Advocate and Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Lakhawat, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Vora, Advocate, Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Advocate, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Taneja, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi Amod, Advocate, Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Advocate, Ms. Anindita Mitra, Advocate, Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate, Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocate, Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Advocate,M/s. Legal Options, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Jahnvi Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Rawat, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advocate, Mr. Bhushan Shah, Advocate and Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Lakhawat, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Vora, Advocate, Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Advocate, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Taneja, Advocate, Ms. Ayushi Amod, Advocate, Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Advocate, Ms. Anindita Mitra, Advocate, Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate, Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocate, Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Advocate,M/s. Legal Options, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Whether the exchange acted as a facilitator or a financial establishment — Interpretation of deposit and valuable commodity — Constitutional validity of the MPID Act. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. The inclusive definition of deposit covers the Settlement Guarantee Fund and warehouse commodities — Valuable commodity includes agricultural products — MPID Act's constitutional validity is settled. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 )
4. A financial establishment accepts deposits under an inclusive definition encompassing money and commodities returned as cash, kind, or service, regardless of promised interest or benefits. (Para 31 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Attachment notifications under Section 4, MPID Act upheld as valid. (Para 66 )
6. How is the term deposit interpreted under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act?
It is an inclusive definition encompassing any receipt of money or acceptance of valuable commodities to be returned after a specified period in cash, kind, or service, with or without any benefit like interest or profit. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 )
7. Does a Settlement Guarantee Fund constitute a deposit if termed a security deposit?
Yes, if its features exceed a standard security deposit—such as covering exchange losses, being invested in securities, or being allocated across trading segments—it falls under the inclusive definition of deposit and is not excluded. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
8. Does the term valuable commodity under the MPID Act only refer to precious metals?
No. The term is not defined by the statute and should be interpreted purposively to protect depositors. It includes any commodity with significant value, including agricultural commodities. (Para 42 , 43 )
9. Is the MPID Act constitutionally valid regarding legislative competence and fundamental rights?
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the Act is a salutary measure to protect small depositors from fraud and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 )
JUDGMENT
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
| A. Facts |
| B. Submissions |
| C. Analysis |
| C. 1 Framework of the MPID Act |
| C. 2 Framework of NSE |
| C. 3 Definitions of 'Deposit' and 'Financial Establishment': Interpretation of Section 2 (c) and 2(d) of the MPID Act |
| C. 3.1 Settlement Guarantee Fund: Deposit under Section 2 (c) of the MPID Act |
| C. 3. 2 Receipt of commodities: Deposit under Section 2 (c) of the Act . |
| C.4 Uncovering the Conspiracy |
| C. 4.1 The Grant Thornton Report |
| C. 4. 2 63 Moons Judgment |
| C. 5 Constitutional Validity of the MPID Act |
| C. 6 The High Court's Judgment |
1. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 22 August 2019 of the Bombay High Court, by which certain notifications attaching the property of the respondent under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (MPID Act) have been quashed. The respondent holds 99.99% of the shareholding of National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL). At the core of the dispute is whether NSEL is a 'financial establishment' within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the MPID Act.
A. Facts
2. NSEL is a company incorporated under the COMPANIES ACT 1956, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Financial Technologies (India) Limited, which is now known as 63 Moons Technologies Limited (FCIL or 63 Moons). On 5 June 2007, the Union of India issued a notification under Section 2 7 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act 1952 ( FCRA ) exempting forward contacts of one-day duration for sale and purchase of commodities traded on NSEL from the application of the provisions of the enactment. NSEL started operating as an exchange for spot trading in commodities. NSEL launched contracts for buying and selling of commodities on its trading platform with different settlement periods, ranging from T+0 to T+36 days. T indicates the trade date, that is the date on which the trade took place and +0 or +36, indicates the number of business days after the trading day when the delivery of the commodity and the payment of price is made.
3. NSEL offered 'paired' contracts. Such contracts enabled traders either by themselves or through their brokers, to simultaneously enter into paired contracts, such as of T+2 and T+25 duration. The seller through his broker puts the commodities on sale and the buyer through his broker looks to purchase commodities of specific requirements. NSEL then pairs the buyer and the seller if there is a match between the requirement of the buyer and the available commodities with the seller. The buyer and the seller simultaneously enter into T+2 and T+25 contracts. For example, if 'A' (the buyer) wants to buy one ton of basmati rice, he would trade on NSEL's platform through his broker. The platform would identify that 'B' (the seller) has an offer to sell the quantified commodity. NSEL would then match both the contracts. The date of matching of the contracts is termed as the trade date or T'. 'A' must then pay the price of the commodity to NSEL, which checks if 'B' has deposited the stock in a warehouse accredited to NSEL for delivery within two days. Once NSEL has confirmed that 'B' has deposited the stock in the warehouse, it transfers the money to 'B'. Simultaneously, the same parties enter into a T+25 contract by which 'A (who was the buyer in the T+2 contract) would sell the same quantity of commodity purchased to 'B' (who was the seller in the T+2 contract). The difference between the purchasing cost and the selling cost is the profit that the trading member acquires through the trade. A flow chart indicating a representation of the transaction is set out below:
4. A detailed step-wise trading process of the paired contracts is indicated below:
(i) A trading member of NSEL who wishes to trade in the platform is required to place a specific quantity of the commodity in a warehouse accredited to NSEL. The warehouse would then generate a warehouse receipt;
(ii) The registered trading member or his brok
