2023 Supreme(MP) 886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGARWAL, J.
Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited, (Formerly Known As Indusind Financial Inclusion Limited) – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15838 Of 2020
Decided On : 21-12-2023
For the Petitioner: Shri Brian D'silva, assisted by Shri Aviral Sahai and Shri Darshan Patankar.
For the Respondents: Shri Subodh Kathar.
Headnote:
RBI Circular - Banking Activities - RBI/2016-17/306 DBR.No.BAPD.BC.69/22.01.001/2016-17, May 18, 2017 - M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-company challenged an order alleging violation of RBI guidelines and provisions of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's activities fell within the definition of 'Financial Establishment' as per the Act of 2000, and the impugned order was not arbitrary or illegal.
Issues: Violation of RBI guidelines, interpretation of 'Financial Establishment' under the Act of 2000
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the RBI circular and the definition of 'Financial Establishment' to conclude that the petitioner's activities were covered, justifying the impugned order.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
This petition is filed by the petitioner-company being aggrieved of order dated 26/08/2020 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the Joint Director, Institutional Finance, Vindhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal wherein it is noted that in terms of RBI circular No.RBI/2016-17/306 DBR.No.BAPD.BC.69/22.01.001/2016-17, May 18, 2017 in Clause-3.1.1 there are provisions in regard to banking outlet. The petitioner company is not entitled to carry on any of the banking activities, but in violation of the RBI guidelines since petitioner has indulged in banking transactions, thus appropriate action be taken against the petitioner company under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2000' for short).
2. It is submitted that as the petitioner is a company involved in non-banking transactions, therefore, it is submitted by Shri Brian D'Silva, learned senior counsel that earlier petitioner-company was registered as NBFC with RBI. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of IndusInd Bank Limited, which is a Scheduled Bank.
3. A Scheme of Amalgamation was submitted to the National Company Law Tribunal for amalgamation of the petitioner-company with IndusInd Bank Limited wherein it is shown that Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited is an Amalgamating Company whereas IndusInd Bank Limited is Amalgamated Company. After amalgamation of Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited with IndusInd Bank Limited, IndusInd Bank Limited transferred its business correspondent business to transferee company namely IndusInd Financial Inclusion Limited on slump basis. Thereafter with a view to use goodwill of the petitioner-company, IndusInd Financial Inclusion Limited has been renamed as Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited.
4. It is submitted that Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited is a public company and consequent to amalgamation, it started looking after non-banking business. Attention is drawn to the RBI circular dated June 24, 2014 bearing No.RBI/2013-14/653 DBOD. No.BAPO.BC.122/22.01.009/2013-14. It is submitted that as per this circular, scope of activities are defined as under :
"Scope of Activities
The scope of activities may include (i) identification of borrowers; (ii) collection and preliminary processing of loan applications including verification of primary information/data; (iii) creating awareness about savings and other products and education and advice on managing money and debt counselling; (iv) processing and submission of applications to banks; (v) promoting nurturing and monitoring of Self Help Groups/Joint Liability Groups/Credit Groups/others; (vi) post-sanction monitoring; (vii) follow-up for recovery; (viii) disbursal of small value credit; (ix) recovery of principal/collection of interest; (x) collection of small value deposits; (xi) sale of micro insurance/mutual fund products/pension products/other third party products and (xii) receipt and delivery of small value remittances/other payment instruments."
5. It is submitted that petitioner being a BC i.e. Business Facilitator/Correspondent, certain transactions were put through them in terms of para-10 of the said circular which reads as under :
"Transactions put through BC.
As engagement of intermediaries such as Business Facilitators/Correspondents involves significant reputational, legal and operational risks, due consideration should be given by banks to those risks. The banks should adopt technology-based solutions for managing the risk, besides increasing the outreach in a cost effective manner. The transactions should normally be put through ICT devices (handheld device/mobile phone) that are seamlessly integrated to the Core Banking Solution (CBS) of the bank. The transactions should be accounted for on a real time basis and the customers should receive immediate verification of their transactions through visuals (screen based) or other means (debit or credit slip).
In formulating their schemes, banks may, in