Oral unsecured loans to NBFC qualify as deposits under RBI Act; repayable on demand absent written terms; limitation extends via balance sheet acknowledgements; no written agreement needed for Section 45QA relief.

ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed, on 29.09.2024, by Renu Agarwal (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’), on account of the Respondent’s failure to repay the deposit made by the Petitioner. Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks, 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 noted that the Respondent Company 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.25,89,986/- was made under the oral terms and conditions stating interest at the rate of 9% per annum, repayable at the end of the financial year. It is further stated that the Respondent Company failed to make any payment during the Financial Year 2019–2020.

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: –

5. It is submitted by the Petitioner that various correspondences regarding repayment of the outstanding deposit, including letters and emails dated 15.04.2020 and 02.06.2020, were addressed to the Respondent Company; however, no repayment was made. The Petitioner also filed a complaint before the RBI through email dated 07.06.2020. The Petitioner further submits that the deposit was made without any agreement, as the transactions themselves are undisputed. The Petitioner also points out that the Respondent Company had duly deducted TDS on such deposits for the AY 2019-2020.

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6. The Respondent filed its reply on 26.03.2025, denying the averments made in the petition on the following grounds:

a. The Respondent contends that the present application is time-barred as the limitation for the recovery of any such money and interest thereon given without any agreement is three years from the demand is made, or the loan is disbursed, or interest becomes due. However, the present application is filed in the year 2024.

b. Respondent argues that the complaint filed by the Petitioner before the RBI refers to the alleged deposit as a ‘loan’ and also reflects a different amount than what has been stated in the present petition. The Respondent, in its detailed reply dated 20.07.2020 to RBI, has clarified that the said complaint is merely an outcome of a family dispute and lacks merit. It is further contended that additional details were also provided to the RBI through email dated 16.09.2020.

c. The Res