Back
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, V.K.MOHANAN
Sundaram Finance Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Chief Secretary To Government – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The appellants, who are registered Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, challenged the decision that they are "money lenders" under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, and thus liable to obtain licenses and comply with the Act's provisions (!) (!) .
The court upheld that the term "person" in the Kerala Money Lenders Act includes companies registered under the Companies Act, as interpreted through applicable statutes, and therefore, NBFCs are considered "persons" engaged in money lending (!) .
The appellants argued that their registration under the RBI Act or Companies Act should exempt them from the Kerala Money Lenders Act, claiming they are institutions established by or under an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. The court rejected this, clarifying that such registration alone does not qualify them for exemption unless they are statutory institutions created explicitly under legislation for money lending purposes (!) (!) .
The court recognized that the RBI's regulation of NBFCs under Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act is primarily to protect depositors, whereas the Kerala Money Lenders Act aims to protect borrowers. Both sets of provisions are applicable and operate concurrently, and there is no conflict between them (!) .
The appellants contested the statutory ceiling on interest rates charged by money lenders, which is set at 2% above the rate charged by commercial banks. The court held that this restriction is valid and that the appellants had not demonstrated that it hampers their business viability (!) .
The government’s decision not to exempt NBFCs from the Kerala Money Lenders Act was within its policy powers, and the court refrained from interfering with such policy decisions. The court emphasized that the legislative body is responsible for deciding whether to rescind or amend the law (!) .
The court confirmed the validity of the Kerala Money Lenders Act's provisions and dismissed the appeals, but clarified that if the appellants remit outstanding license fees and apply for licenses within one month, penalties and penalties for previous violations will be revoked (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Appellants which are Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) registered with Reserve Bank of India under Section 45IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act are challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that they are "money lenders" within the meaning of that term contained in the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act") liable to take licence under Section 3 of the Act for carrying on business in Kerala. Admittedly the appellants/petitioners are engaged in money lending in Kerala. However, their case is that being Non-Banking Financial Companies registered under Section 45 IA of the R.B.I. Act, they don't come within the meaning of "person" contained in the definition clause of "money lender" under Section 2(7) of the Act. An alternate contention raised by the appellants/petitioners is that even if they fall under the main definition clause as "persons", they fall within the exception clause (f) of Section 2(7) of the Act which excludes institutions established by or under an Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State from the purview of the Act. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the contentions a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
