- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Durga Prasad Mandelia And Others v. Registrar Of Companies, Maharashtra.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners filed a petition under section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Registrar of Companies (the respondent) issued a show-cause notice dated 27 December 1984 alleging that the company, Birla Consultants Ltd., had deposited money with various companies in contravention of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956. The notice stated that the company had deposited Rs. 25.80 lakhs with various companies and observed that the total of subscribed capital (Rs. 12,00,000) and reserves (Rs. 11,93,028) amounted to Rs. 23,93,028, of which 30% is Rs. 7,17,908; whereas the company had deposited in other companies amounts stated in the notice (one place records Rs. 20.80 lakhs). The show-cause notice alleged prima facie excess over the statutory limit and that the company had not obtained prior approval of the Central Government as required by section 370.
The petitioners sought relief in response to that notice; the respondent opposed the petition. The matter proceeded to hearing, before Parekh, J., and the court delivered the opinion set out in the provided text.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the moneys advanced by Birla Consultants Ltd. to another company (Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) constitute a "loan" within the meaning of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956, thereby bringing the transaction within the prohibition and approval requirement of that section.
- Whether the statutory and regulatory definitions and distinctions between "deposit" and "loan" (including the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, rule 2 and related authorities) require construing "loan" in section 370 so as to exclude deposits with other companies (and, by analogy, deposits with scheduled banks).
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's (Registrar of Companies') Arguments — as presented by Mr. Rele, counsel
- The moneys advanced by Birla Consultants Ltd. to Associated Cement Companies Ltd. were in substance a "loan" and not merely a deposit.
- The terms "loan" and "deposit" are related; "loan" is a generic term that can include a deposit; in a monetary transaction a creditor–debtor relationship arises and therefore the moneys advanced should be treated as a loan (relying on N. Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corporation).
- Under section 58A of the Companies Act (as referred to by counsel), the statutory regime for deposits applies to "borrowing companies", whereas section 370 deals with "loan" and applies to "lending companies"; the transactions in question were loans within the meaning of section 370.
- Rule 2(b) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 defines "deposit" to include "any amount borrowed by a company," but excludes "any amount received by a company from any other company" (rule 2(b)(iv)); therefore, moneys placed with another company cannot be considered a deposit under that rule and must be treated as loans for purposes of section 370.
- On that basis, the respondent argued the petitioners were not entitled to relief and that legal action for contravention of section 370 was justified.
Petitioners' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the petitioners' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| N. Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corporation, [1921] 3 KB 110 (CA) | Illustration that money placed with a bank on current account may be in the position of money lent by the customer to the bank; used to show that deposits can, in some senses, be regarded as loans. | The respondent relied on this authority to equate deposits with loans. The court acknowledged the principle but did not accept the respondent's broad application for construing section 370 to include deposits with corporate bodies. |
| V.E.A. Annamalai Chettiar v. S.V.V.S. Veerappa Chettiar, AIR 1956 SC 12 | The ratio that determination whether a transaction is a "deposit" or a "loan" depends on the intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. | The court cited this case to emphasise that the characterization of a transaction as loan or deposit is fact-dependent and turns on intention and circumstances. |
| Ram Janki Devi v. Juggilal Kamlapat, (1971) 1 SCC 477 : AIR 1971 SC 2551 | Reiterates the principle that the distinction between deposit and loan depends on parties' intention and circumstances; used in construing statutory words. | The court relied on this authority for the proposition that the distinction is "fine but appreciable" and that statutory construction must respect that distinction when interpreting section 370. |
| Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh, AIR 1936 PC 171 : 63 IA 279 | Authority for treating the word "loan" in certain contexts as meaning a loan that does not amount to a deposit. | The court cited this case to support its view that "loan" in section 370 should be read as covering loans not amounting to deposits, to avoid an overbroad construction that would capture ordinary deposits (e.g., with scheduled banks). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by acknowledging the respondent's contention that money advanced by Birla Consultants Ltd. to another company must be treated as a loan because a creditor–debtor relationship arises in monetary transactions and because certain authorities and rules can treat deposits as loans in some contexts (as argued with N. Joachimson and the definition in the 1975 Deposit Rules).
The court then set out the governing approach to distinguishing "deposit" and "loan": the classification depends on the intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances — a principle supported by the cited authorities (V.E.A. Annamalai Chettiar and Ram Janki Devi). The court noted that the difference between a loan and a deposit is "fine but appreciable" and that the Limitation Act treats the commencement of limitation differently for deposits and loans, underscoring the significance of the distinction.
Turning to the statutory and regulatory materials, the court considered rule 2(b) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, which defines "deposit" and specifically excludes “any amount received by a company from any other company” from the definition (rule 2(b)(iv)). The respondent relied on this provision to argue that amounts advanced to another company could not be deposits and must therefore be loans under section 370.
The court rejected that line of reasoning for the purposes of construing section 370. It observed that if every deposit with a corporate body were treated as a "loan" under section 370, then deposits with scheduled banks would also fall within section 370's ambit — a result the respondent had conceded was not intended. To treat some deposits as loans and others not would produce an inconsistent construction. On that basis (and with support from the cited precedents, including Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan), the court concluded that the word "loan" in section 370 should be construed as dealing with loans not amounting to deposits.
Applying these principles to the present record, the court found that, apart from the respondent's assertion, there was nothing else on the material to show that the moneys advanced to Associated Cement Companies Ltd. had been advanced as a "loan." Consequently, the court negatived the respondent's contention that the advances were loans within the meaning of section 370.
Holding and Implications
The court held that the moneys advanced by Birla Consultants Ltd. to Associated Cement Companies Ltd. were not loans within the meaning of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956, and therefore the respondent's contention that there was a contravention of section 370 was negatived.
As a direct consequence of this holding, the court ordered that the petitioners were entitled to relief in terms of prayers (a) and (d) of the petition. The opinion does not elaborate on the precise content of those prayers in the text supplied; it records only that the petitioners succeed to the extent stated.
The opinion confined itself to the statutory construction and application to the facts before the court; it did not purport to lay down a broader rule beyond the interpretation that, for the purposes of section 370, "loan" should be read as excluding certain deposits (i.e., loans not amounting to deposits). The decision's practical effect was to negate the Registrar's allegation in this case and to grant the petitioners the specified relief. The text does not indicate that the court intended to announce a novel precedent beyond the interpretive points applied to these facts.
Parekh, J.:— The petitioners have filed this petition under the provisions of section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. The facts that give rise to this petition are that the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) served a notice dated December 27, 1984, on the petitioners asking them to show cause why legal action should not be taken for contravention by the company of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the said notice, it has been, inter alia, stated as follows:
“Whereas the company has deposited Rs. 25.80 lakhs with various companies.
Whereas section 370 provides that no company shall make loans to all bodies corporate exceeding 20% or 30%, as the case may be, and if it exceeds, then the company is required to obtain prior approval of the Central Government.
Whereas the total of subscribed capital and reserves, i.e, Rs. 12,00,000 and Rs. 11,93,028, respectively, amounting to Rs. 23,93,028 and 30% of this come to Rs. 7,17,908 whereas the company has deposited in other companies amounting to Rs. 20.80 lakhs. Prima facie it has exceeded the limit prescribed under this Act. Hence, it has contravened the provisions of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956.
And Whereas the company by not obtaining the approval of the Central Government as required under section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956, has contravened the provisions of the above section of this Act.”
3. The petitioners have hence filed this petition seeking relief. The petition has been opposed by the respondent.
4. At the hearing of this matter, Mr. Rele, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that it is not in dispute that the company, viz., Birla Consultants Ltd., had advanced a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 to the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. That, in a monetary transaction, whether it be a deposit or a loan, the relationship of a creditor and debtor must come about. That the word “loan” is a “generic” term and includes a deposit. That moneys placed with the bank on a current account is in the position of moneys lent by the customer to a bank although all incidents of an ordinary transaction of a loan do not exist, (vide N. Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corporation, [1921] 3 KB 110 (CA)). That section 58a of the companies act deals with deposits and applies to “borrowing companies” (term used by Mr. Rele). section 370 of the Companies Act deals with “loan” and applies to “lending companies” (term used by Mr. Rele). That the company, viz., Birla Consultants Ltd., has in fact in the guise of a “deposit” actually lent moneys to the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and the transaction is squarely a “loan” within the’ meaning of section 370 of the Companies Act. Then again, rule 2 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, provides as follows:
“2. Definitions.—In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,—……
(b) ‘deposit’ means any deposit of money with, and includes any amount borrowed by, a company, but does not include—……
(iv) any amount received by a company from any other company;”
5. If this be so, then, in the present case, since there is no dispute that the moneys given by the company are to another company, the same cannot be considered as a “deposit”, but would in fact be a “loan”. In the circumstances, the petitioners would be entitled to no relief whatsoever on this petition.
6. Now, as regards the aforesaid contentions, it may be stated that there can be no controversy that in a transaction of a deposit of money or a loan, a relationship of a debtor and creditor must come into existence. The terms “deposit” and “loan” may not be mutually exclusive, but none the less in each case what must be considered is the intention of the parties and the circumstances. This is also the ratio laid down in V.E.A Annamalai Chettiar v. S.V.V.S Veerappa Chettiar, AIR 1956 SC 12, as also in Ram Janki Devi v. Juggilal Kamlapat, (1971) 1 SCC 477 : AIR 1971 SC 2551. What must also be borne in mind is that under the Limitation Act, the period when limitation would begin in a case of deposit and in a case of lending are differently provided. Hence, the distinction between a loan and a deposit is fine but appreciable.
7. In the present case, barring the assertion of the respondent that the moneys advanced by the company to the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. constitute a loan and offend section 370 of the Companies Act, there is nothing else to show that these moneys have been advanced as a “loan”. From what is aforestated, it follows, that in the context of the statutory provision, the word “loan” may be used in the sense of a “loan” not amounting to a deposit, (vide Nawab Major Sir Mohammad’ Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh, AIR 1936 PC 171 : 63 IA 279 and Ram Janki Devi v. Juggilal Kamlapat, (1971) 1 SCC 477 : AIR 1971 SC 2551). In other words, the word “loan” in section 370 must now be construed as dealing with loans not amounting to deposits, because, otherwise, if deposit of moneys with corporate bodies were to be treated as loans, then deposits with scheduled banks would also fall within the ambit of section 370 of the Companies Act. Mr. Rele has, however, fairly conceded that deposits with scheduled banks do not fall within the ambit of section 370 of the Companies Act. Then to treat certain deposits of money and not others as being within the ambit of section 370 of the Act would be to give an inconsistent construction to the section.
8. In the circumstances, the contention of Mr. Rele that in this case the moneys given by Birla Consultants Ltd. to the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. is a loan within the meaning of section 370 of the Companies Act must be negatived.
9. In the result, the petitioners would well be entitled to the relief in terms of prayers (a) and (d) of the petition.
Alert