Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 & A2 to quash the complaint in E.O.C.C.No.343 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offence-I, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The gist of the complaint is that the First Accused Company is M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Limited, which is a Non- Banking Financial Company as defined under Section 45I(f) of the Reserve https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Bank of India Act, 1934 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The second accused is Mr.R.Subramanian, Director of the A1/Company and A3 to A5 are the Directors of the A1/Company, of which case against A4/G.Ramanujam was quashed by this Court. As regards the case against A3 and A5, case against them got abated since they were reported dead and now the case is pending against A1 Company and A2/the petitioners herein alone. The directions and orders issued by the Reserve Bank of India [RBI] have not been complied with, thereby they become liable for prosecution and punishment under Sections 58B(2), 58B(5)(aa) and 58B(4A) read with Section 58C of the Act. The first accused Company was incorporated on 13.05.1991 with the main object of carrying on the business of trading, leasing and hire purchasing. The first accused Company applied for Certificate of Registration [COR] with RBI to carry on business of Non- Banking Financial Company [NBFC]. The A1/Company produced a certificate from its auditors to the effect that the Board of Directors passed a resolution to the effect that they will not accept public deposits. The RBI granted COR on 20.04.1998 with specific condition that it should not accept public deposits and in case they wanted to raise any public deposits, prior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis permission from the RBI to be obtained after furnishing necessary credit rating. It was observed that the A1/Company was accepting/holding public deposits under the guise of various investor schemes in violation of Non- Banking Financial Companies Acceptance of Public Deposits [Reserve Bank] Directors, 1977. Hence, RBI vide its letter dated 25.04.1995 advised the A1/Company to treat the monies collected under the guise of various investor schemes in various of the Directions as regulated deposits. The accused Company filed W.P.No.8786 of 1995. This Court by order dated 07.08.2003 dismissed the writ petition upholding the orders of the RBI. Against which, the accused Company preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.3097 of 2003 and the same is pending before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7.He further submitted that the letter dated 03.03.2009 of the RBI cannot be construed as a direction under Chapter IIIB of the Act and it is merely a demand to comply with Section 45N of the Act. Since the petitioner is not an NBFC since 2006 and as per the financial statement, 2008 the information sought for can only be in respect of deposits as per Section 45K of the Act. The respondent had no power to seek information other than on deposits. The demand for information dated 13.02.2009 is without authority and hence, non-compliance of the same can made no offence. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that the Certificate of Registration was cancelled vide order dated 06.08.2005. The Income Pattern Statement for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 would reveal that the petitioner Company have majority non-financial assets and majority income from non financial assets implying that the principal business of the Company is not financing and therefore, even any financing business carried on by our clients would not make them a NBFC. The petitioners' principal business has not been financing since 2006 and mere pendency of the appeal on cancellation of Certificate of Registration cannot be construed and taken that the petitioners are still an NBFC. He further submitted that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the RBI by its communication dated 17.06.2015 addressed to one Mr.Krishna Kumar, a Depositor, confirmed that the petitioner Company is not registered under Non-Banking Financial Company [NBFC] with RBI. The RBI cannot blow hot and cold, in one stretch it is stated that the petitioner Company had violated the guidelines issued for NBFC, on the other hand stated that the petitioner Company is not registered under NBFC. He further produced the fresh Certificate of Registration dated 02.06.2011 wherein M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Limited has passed necessary resolution as per the Companies Act and the name of the said Company was changed to M/s.Viswapriya [India] Limited. Assailing these points, he filed a typed set of papers enlisting the various communications received from the RBI, reply sent and also the submission of documents before the Registrar of Companies.