Write off of icd our of profit

(d) The petitioner contends that the inter-corporate deposits are governed by and regulated under the provisions of the Companies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. On the one hand, the definition of 'deposit' under section 2(c) of the MPID Act, if properly construed, in the light of the avowed object of the MPID Act excludes from its purview the inter- corporate deposits. On the other hand, the definition of 'deposit' provided in Rule 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 explicitly excludes any Shraddha Talekar PS amount received by the Company from any other Company from the term "deposit". As the inter-corporate deposits are specifically excluded from the term "deposit" under the provisions of the Companies Act and Rules framed thereunder, the provisions of MPID Act cannot be made applicable to such deposits. The petitioner asserts that the inclusion of the inter- corporate deposits in the outstanding amount and the consequent issuance of the attachment orders in respect of various properties, by taking into account the said outstanding amount, is legally impermissible. Thus, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the inter-corporate deposits do not come under the purview of the definition of 'deposit' under section 2(c) of the MPID Act and a consequential direction to delete and/or quash the names of the inter-corporate deposit holders/lenders from the list of the depositors in MPID Case No.4 of 2014.

4. Shri Setalvad, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner mounted a multi-pronged attack to inclusion of the inter-corporate deposits as the deposits, in the repayment of which, the petitioner committed default fraudulently, within the mischief of section 3 of the MPID Act. First and foremost, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the object of enactment of MPID Act. It was strenuously urged that the stated object of the Act was to address the mischief of swindling the deposits collected from public, mostly middle-class and poor people, on the promise of unprecedented higher rates of interest or rewards. The MPID Act, according to the learned Senior Counsel, was never intended to govern the inter-corporate debts or transactions, which form a class apart by themselves. Secondly, it was submitted that the said area of inter-corporate transactions has not been left unregulated. There are efficacious and adequate provisions in the Companies Act, 2013 ('Act 2013'). Chapter V of the Act, 2013 subsumes provisions to regulate the acceptance of deposits from public under the title "acceptance of deposits by Companies". Even provisions for damages for fraud and punishment for contravention of the regulatory provisions have been made therein. Under the Companies Act, 1956 also, provisions were made in section 58A, 58AA and 58AAA to Shraddha Talekar PS address the issue of acceptance of deposits by the Corporate entities. Moreover, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 73 and 76 read with section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Central Government has framed Rules namely, Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 to further regulate the acceptance of deposits. Shri Setalvad laid emphasis on the definition of 'deposit' in Rule 2(1)(c) of the said rules which expressly excludes any amount received by the company from another company from its purview, to draw-home the point that inter-corporate deposits do not fall within the tentacles of the provisions of MPID Act. Thirdly, it was submitted that the provisions of the MPID Act cannot be so construed as to override the provisions of the Companies Act, Rules framed thereunder, and other Central legislations, in view of the object with which the MPID Act was enacted by the State Legislature. According to Shri Setalvad, inclusion of inter-corporate debts/deposits within the purview of the MPID would run counter to the clear and unambiguous intent of the legislature.

10. It is nobody's case that the above-named four companies do not fall within the definition of "Financial Establishment". The controversy revolves around the question as to whether the money accepted by the aforesaid companies in the form of inter-corporate deposits falls within the dragnet of "deposit", within the meaning of MPID Act. The learned Special P.P. was within his rights in advancing the submission that, in the facts of the instant case, the inter-corporate deposit do not fall within any of the sub- clauses (i) to (vii) of clause (c) so as to exclude them from the ambit of the definition of deposit. However, the petitioner has asserted that the fact that the definition of 'deposit' under section 2(c) does not specifically exclude inter-corporate deposits from its purview does not conclusively determine the issue. The object behind the enactment of the MPID Act and the other Shraddha Talekar PS governing provisions of the Central legislation need to be borne in mind to determine as to whether the inter-corporate deposits fall within the ambit of the term 'deposit' under section 2(c).