SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(All) 360

Allahbad High Court
K.S.VARMA,S.SAGHIRAHMAD
Secured Investment Company. Lucknow - Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Firms. Societies and Chits. U.P. Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 04/20/1982

Advocates:
P.N. Mathur, for Petitioners; B.M.N. Kuchar, for the State.

Headnote:

PRIZE CHIT - MONEY CIRCULATION SCHEMES (BANNING) ACT, 1978 - SECTION 2(E) - DEFINITION OF PRIZE CHIT - SCHEME OF COLLECTING MONEY FROM MEMBERS AND DEPOSITING IT IN A NATIONALISED BANK TO OBTAIN A REINSTATEMENT DEPOSIT PLAN RECEIPT - NOT A PRIZE CHIT - NOT BANNED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners ran a scheme where members deposited Rs. 220 with them to obtain a Reinvestment Deposit Plan Receipt from a nationalised bank. The petitioners deposited Rs. 127.75 in the bank and kept the remaining Rs. 92.25 for lucky draws to distribute prizes among the members. The Registrar of Firms held that the scheme was a prize chit and banned it under the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the scheme was not a prize chit within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. The court found that the essential ingredients of a prize chit, namely, the collection of money as contributions or subscriptions and the utilization of the money so collected for giving prizes or gifts, were missing from the scheme. The court also held that the scheme was not a money circulation scheme as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act.

Issues: Whether the scheme run by the petitioners was a prize chit or a money circulation scheme within the meaning of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scheme was not a prize chit because the money was not collected as contributions or subscriptions and was not utilized for giving prizes or gifts. The court also held that the scheme was not a money circulation scheme because the money was not collected in a lump sum and was not utilized for the purpose of making loans or advances.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the orders passed by the Registrar of Firms banning the scheme. The court also directed the Registrar of Firms to return the documents seized from the petitioners and not to interfere with the business of the petitioners.

Judgement

K. S. VARMA, J.:- This writ petition is directed against certain orders passed by the Registrar of Firms. Societies and Chits. Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The action, which purports to have been taken against the petitioners under the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Act) is sought to be challenged.

2. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of an unregistered partnership firm M/s. Secured Investment Company (petitioner No. 1). It is claimed that petitioner No. 1 deals in the business of acting as an agent for getting money deposited in nationalised or scheduled banks only and also for promotion of sales of certain commodities. The petitioners are carrying on their business mainly in Lucknow with branches at Kanpur and Bareilly. It is further claimed in the writ petition that the petitioners firm started a scheme for investment in which persons who were interested were required to pay a sum of Rs. 220 only once. Then a sum was deposited in a Nationalised or Scheduled Bank in the Reinvestment Deposits Plan certificate and person concerned was given a Fixed Deposit Receipt which has maturity value of Rs. 220. The receipt is given directly by the bank in the name of the depositor. The petitioner firm acts only as a motivator for making deposits in the nationalised or scheduled banks. The petitioners firms acts like an agent for the bank and also helps such depositors in making the deposits and obtaining the receipt from the bank. The petitioner does not get any commission either from the bank or from the depositor but under the scheme he gets a small interest which the depositor would earn in 66 months. Out of this profit, the petitioner provides for the items of utility and household effects which a person can get in accordance with the draw in which he would be able to participate for a period of 60 months. The petitioners further say that the person participating in the scheme is fully secured for his money because he gets a Fixed Deposit Receipt from a nationalised or scheduled bank with the maturity value of Rs. 220. The depositor voluntarily foregoes to accept any interest on the amount for a term of 66 months. The depositor gets the Reinvestment Deposit Plan Receipt of the bank which he can encash from the bank directly whenever he desires. In short the depositor is not likely to lose the amount deposited and he voluntarily agrees to forego interest. Thus a small spare money of the depositor is available to nationalised or scheduled bank which can be utilised, according to the plans of the Government for development and other welfare work for the benefit of the society at large. The deposit of 66 months allows considerable scope for the bank and consequently to the Government to utilise the small thrift of such deposits for great purposes. The petitioner is only able to earn the interest that this small amount would have yielded in lieu of his commission or for services rendered. In addition to it, the petitioners provide for articles ranging from a Scooter or Refrigerator to other household effects to be made available to the depositors up to a total sum of Rs. 15,000 every month. Thus, it is clear that the depositor foregoes the interest with a view to get any of the items mentioned in Clause 8 of the agreement in accordance with the draw. It is significant that no cash prize or cash in lieu of the article is given to any of the depositor. Thus a depositor has 60 chances of getting any of the consumer goods mentioned therein for the petty amount of interest that he foregoes.

3. The terms and conditions of the agreement are contained in the document which has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition. Those terms and conditions are being reproduced below:-

"1. Secured Investment Co. will be known as Company.

2. Every member will deposit with the Co. Rs. 220 only once : in return he will get a Reinvestment Deposit Plan Receipt/Bank Cash Certif























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top