IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Narendra Kumar Vyas, JJ.
Reserve Bank Of
Assistant General Manager, Department Of Non Banking Supervision,
Versus
Samruddhi Saving And Investment (I) Ltd. – Respondent
COMA No. 1 of 2018
Delivered on :
(A) Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 45-MC - Banking Regulation Act, 1956 - Winding up petition - The petition for winding up under Section 45-MC is not maintainable against a company that is not registered as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) - The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the grounds that the respondent company was not a registered NBFC, as its application for registration was rejected by the RBI - The court emphasized that the RBI has the authority to regulate NBFCs and that a winding up petition can only be filed against a registered NBFC. (Paras 4, 12, 14)
(B) Legal Authority - The RBI's power to regulate and supervise NBFCs is comprehensive, extending from registration to winding up, and no company can operate as an NBFC without registration - The court clarified that the provisions of the RBI Act do not apply to companies that are not registered as NBFCs. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, the Reserve Bank of India, filed a winding up petition against the respondent company, which had been classified as a Residuary Non-Banking Company but was not registered as an NBFC. The application for registration was rejected by the RBI, leading to the dismissal of the winding up petition by the Single Judge.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the winding up petition, affirming that the respondent company could not be considered an NBFC due to the lack of registration.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the winding up petition was maintainable against a company not registered as an NBFC and the interpretation of the RBI's regulatory powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the RBI's regulatory framework necessitates registration for a company to be classified as an NBFC, and without such registration, the winding up petition is not maintainable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Reserve Bank of India being aggrieved with the Order dated 24.11.2017 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Company Petition No. 2/2004 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the count that petition for winding up under Section 45-MC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 read with provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1956 is not maintainable.
2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the appellant/RBI is a statutory regulating authority for Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) empowered under Chapter III B of the Act (as amended by the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997) for issuing certificate of registration to NBFCs, prescribing Prudential Norms, issuing Directions, prohibiting NBFCs from accepting deposits, filing winding up petitions etc. The respondent Company has been carrying on the business of receiving deposits under different schemes and was classified by the RBI as a Residuary Non Banking Company (RNBC). The respondent Company has been issued a memo dated 19th December, 1992 advising the company of its classification as a RNBC is required to comply with the RBI directions contained in Residuary Non Banking Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions 1987. The respondent Company submitted an application dated 4th July, 1997 to the appellant for grant of registration certificate acknowledging itself to be a RNBC which was rejected by the appellant vide its order dated 28.10.1999 and 02.11.1998. It is further case of the appellant that the respondent's net owned fund was revealed negative in the inspection conducted in the month of November, 2001, as such it was disqualified to carry on the business of Non Banking Financial Company under Section 45-I A of the Act of 1934, consequently, prohibitory order dated 14.10.1998 was issued and a show cause notice was also issued as to why its application for grant of certificate of Registration be not rejected. The respondent submitted its reply. The respondent was inspected and it was found that respondent was still accepting deposits even after prohibitory order, therefore, the appellant rejected the application filed by the respondent.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P. No. 5131 of 1998 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the prohibitory order. The said petition was disposed off on 24.09.2001 with a direction to the appellant that the competent authority who has passed the prohibitory order shall examine the case and pass a reasoned order since various technical issues are involved in the case and till the matter is decided restrained the respondent from withdrawing any amount or accepting any deposits till the matter is decided by the higher forum with the appellant. Pursuant to the direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bhopal passed a reasoned order on 10.12.2001 and held that the respondent is not entitled to accept money from the public. Thereafter, the appellant filed company petition before this Court for winding up of respondent company under Section 45-MC of the Act of 1934 read with the provisions of the Act of 1956 registered as Company Petition No. 2 of 2004 for appointment of Official Liquidator of the respondent to wind up as per the Companies Act, 1956 .
4. Learned Single Judge vide the impugned order found that though the appellant is under obligation to grant registration certificate under the provisions contained in Section 45-IA (1)(a) of the Act of 1934, but the respondent's application for grant of registration has been rejected by express order of the RBI on 28.10.1999. Thus, it would not satisfy the meaning of Non- Banking Financial Company for the purpose of Section 45-MC of the Act of 1934. It has also been held that the company petition can be filed under Section 45-MC of the Act of 1934 only against a Non-Banking
K.K. Baskaran vs. State of Tamilnadu
Nedumpilli Finance Company ltd. vs. State of Kerela and Others
A winding up petition under Section 45-MC of the RBI Act is not maintainable against a company that is not registered as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with the Reserve Bank of India.
A winding up petition under the RBI Act is not maintainable against a Non-Banking Financial Company that is not registered with the RBI.
The judgment established the absolute nature of meeting fixed criteria in financial legislations, the limited scope of judicial review in economic decisions, and the importance of adhering to statuto....
Important points:The power granted to the RBI for cancellation of Registration is discretionary, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the RBI is bound to cancel the Registration of a non-ba....
The cancellation decision was within the authority of the RBI, and the petitioner's admission of guilt and the opportunity of a personal hearing satisfied the principles of natural justice.
A scheme of arrangement under Companies Act cannot be approved if it violates mandatory provisions of the RBI Act, particularly when non-disclosure of regulatory violations undermines the process.
Chapter III-B of the RBI Act is a complete code in itself and the power of intervention available for the RBI over NBFCs, is from the cradle to the grave.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.