ALLAHABAD BENCH, PRAYAGRAJ (An application filed under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 read with rule 73 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MADHUSUDAN VEHICLES PVT. LTD.

B-6 Lawyers Colony, Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

…………Applicant Versus SHIVAM TRADERS AND HIRE PURCHASE PVT. LTD.

20, North Vijay Nagar Colony, Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

.............Respondent Order pronounced on 16.01.2026 Coram:

Mr. Praveen Gupta : Member (Judicial)

Mr. Ashish Verma : Member (Technical)

Appearances:

Sh. Ravi Kapoor & : For the Petitioner Ms. Aditi Singhal, Advs.

Sh. Arun Saxena with : For the Respondent Ms. Nalini & Sh. Amit Verma, Advs.

ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed on 09.09.2020 by Madhusudhan Vehicles Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) against Shivam Traders and Hire and Purchase Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent/Respondent Company’)

under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the “RBI Act”), read with Rule 65 of NCLT Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT Rules’), as the Respondent Company has failed to repay the deposit made by the Petitioner Company. This Petition has been filed in Form 11 as prescribed in Rule 73 of NCLT Rules seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:

“(i) that the company, above named be directed to make repayment of the aforesaid Deposit along with interest due thereon in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Deposit;

(ii) that such further orders be passed as the Tribunal deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. It is stated that the Petitioner Company is the authorized dealer of M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and engaged in the business of selling vehicles along with providing after sales services, sale of spare parts & accessories, insurance of cars, of its principal company i.e. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and is having its registered office at Agra. The Respondent Company, on the other hand, is a non-deposit- accepting Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) registered under the RBI Act, with its registered office also situated at Agra. Accordingly, since the registered offices of both parties are located within Agra, the jurisdiction vests in this Tribunal.

3. As per the averments made in the Petition, an amount of deposit of Rs. 20,25,00,000/- was made under the terms and conditions stating interest at the rate of 8% per annum, repayable at the end of the financial year. The details of the repayments so far made by the Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

Respondent Company are as follows:

4. The Petitioner further submits that the actual amount due and payable, comprising the principal along with accrued interest, as on the date of filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

filing of the present application, is as under: –

5. The Petitioner submits that despite repeated correspondences seeking repayment of the outstanding deposit, including letters and emails dated 14.04.2020, 02.06.2020 and 01.08.2020, the Respondent Company failed to make any repayment. It is further submitted that complaints were lodged before the RBI through communications dated 16.05.2020 and 28.06.2020. The Petitioner asserts that the deposit was advanced without a formal written agreement, the transaction itself being undisputed. It is also pointed out that in earlier financial years, similar deposits were accepted and TDS was duly d