JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Gadkari, J.) :

1. Appellant in both the Appeals, filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short, “the MPID Act”) has impugned common Order dated 13th October 2022 passed in Misc. Application No.1041 of 2022 and Misc. Application No.648 of 2022 in MPID Case No.1 of 2014 filed by the Respondent No.1 respectively herein, by the learned Special Judge (MPID), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai.

2. Heard Mr. Bharucha, learned counsel for Appellant, Mr. Pendse, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 in both the Appeals, Ms. Gonsalvez, learned Special PP for the Respondent No.2, Ms. Shinde learned APP for Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Lakhawat learned counsel for Intervenor in both the Interim Applications.

3. Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.1106 of 2022 had filed Misc. Application No.1041 of 2022 contending that, she is a senior citizen aged about 91 years and having receivable outstanding of Rs.10,28,520/- as on 31st July 2013, for which she is waiting for over 9 years. That, she has very little savings left and being a senior citizen does not have any other source of income. That, she is bedridden and suffering from various health issues and therefore she is in acute need of money. She therefore approached the Special Court to permit distribution of monies to those investors who have outstanding above Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs. That, considering the health issues and old age the said Application deserves to be allowed.

Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.1108 of 2022 had filed Misc. Application No.648 of 2022 contending that, she is 53 years of age and having an outstanding of Rs.10,10,746/- approximately. That, she has very small outstanding left. She therefore had approached trial Court to permit the distribution of monies to those investors who have outstanding above Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs.

Both the Respondent Nos.1 have relied upon various decisions rendered by this Court in support of their contention that, they fall in the category of ‘individual small investors’ who are covered in the bracket of above Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs.

4. The trial Court by its impugned common Order dated 13th October 2022 allowed both the said Misc. Applications and directed the Competent Authority to make graded distribution to only individual investors/depositors who had outstanding amount between Rs.10 lakhs to 20 lakhs from the available amount with it, after due verification in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Bharucha, learned counsel appearing for Appellant in both the Appeals submitted that, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Ashish Mahendrakar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.3228 of 2019 dated 13th September, 2019, only the inter-corporate deposits/loans by a Company with other Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, would not amount to a deposit and only those entities can be excluded from extending benefit of receiving all invested amount from the Competent Authority. He submitted that, the trial Court has misinterpreted the Judgment of this Court in the case of Rabibai Mohamad Ismail Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2020 dated 8th March, 2021, while applying the criteria of ‘equitable’ distribution of the amounts realised from the sale of properties of the accused by the Competent Authority. That, the Appellant’s sole objective is to protect the rights of the investors/depositors and to recover the monies from NSEL scam. That, the Corporations and Firms who fall within the ambit of Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs are kept out from distribution of said amount which is not in consonance with the principle of equity. He submitted that, the Appellant is challenging the distribution to the individual depositors having amounts outstanding between Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs without there being any classification available under the law. That, there cannot be fu