Dismissed

Green Ray International Limited Represented by Its General Manager Sk Nurul Hossain v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2021WPC/1211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to allow the petitioner company to continue its business after its office was sealed. The Court held that without registration under the Reserve Bank of India Act, the company could not run deposit-taking activities, rendering the SEBI Act inapplicable, and upheld the prohibition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no positive direction passed to allow business to continue.

Green Ray International Limited Represented by Its… — Banking and Recovery | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1211 of 2013

¶3

----

¶4

Green Ray International Limited, a Public Limited Company having its Registered Office at Green Ray Multiplex, Deuli Panchghanta, Jaleshwar, Balasore, State – Orissa, Represented by its General Manager, Sk. Nurul Hossain, S/o Sk Abdul Gani, Resident of Village – Takatpur, P.S. – Baripada, Distt – Mayurbhanj, State – Orissa.

¶5

Sk. Nurul Hossain, S/o Sk Abdul Gani, presently being the General manager of Green Ray International Limited having his Residence at Resident of Village – Takatpur, P.S. – Baripada, Distt – Mayurbhanj, State – Orissa.

¶6

… … Petitioners Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. & District – Sahibganj.

¶9

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. & District – Sahibganj.

¶10

Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of corporate Affairs, New Delhi, P.O. + P.S. New Delhi.

¶11

Registrar of Company Affairs cum Official Liquidator, Bihar & Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶12

Reserve Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna, (Bihar).

¶13

Regional Manager, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), 5^th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Samsad Marg, New Delhi – 110001. … … Respondents

¶14

---CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate

¶16

Order No. 11 : Dated 16^th March, 2021

¶17

¶18

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity.

¶19

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

3. The prayers made in this writ petition are for direction in

¶21

the nature of writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to

¶22

¶23

continue its lawful business from the concerned office and not to interfere with in any manner in continuing the lawful business from the office of the petitioners which had been sealed by the concerned authority without serving any proper notice and without giving any opportunity to the representative of the petitioners to place their defence.

¶24

4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions are required to be enumerated herein which reads hereunder as:-

¶25

The petitioner company herein namely, Green Ray International Limited is a registered company under the Companies Act as a Public Company Limited by shares. The petitioner company deals in gold and silver coins and having its many offices throughout the country and particularly having its offices and works in the State of Jharkhand.

¶26

The petitioners after getting necessary permissions from the competent authorities for carrying out the business in pursuance to the Memorandum and Articles of Associations have started the business but without any complaint whatsoever and without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the authorities have taken restrainment measures by sealing the office and restraining the petitioners’ units in carrying out their business and therefore, the writ petition has been filed.

¶27

¶28

5. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in absence of any complaint from any quarter, the action which has been taken by sealing the office, is not proper and such decision has been taken without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, hence, the action of the respondents being arbitrary, therefore, direction may be passed for allowing the writ petitioners to carry out their business.

¶29

6. The State of Jharkhand has filed affidavit, wherein interalia stand has been taken by making reference about the letter of Reserve Bank of India dated 30.03.2012 addressed to the Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Jharkhand whereby and whereunder request has been made to take steps upon multilevel marketing scheme works and that the State Government has jurisdiction to take action against multi-level marketing scheme company/firm within their State as per Prize, Chits and Money Circular Scheme (Banking) Act, 1978. It was also requested vide aforesaid letter to furnish the list of such type of company/firm which are functional in the State of Jharkhand.

¶30

It has further been stated that the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj has written a letter dated 03.02.2013 to Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for deputation of Magistrate for enquiry/raid upon the non-banking activities which are being conducted violating the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and in this connection Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj

¶31

¶32

vide order dated 07.02.2013 constituted a team for Sahibganj and Rajmahal Sub-Division under Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj and Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajmahal for enquiry and raid upon non-banking activities with Deputy Superintendent of Police/Sub-Divisional Police Officers and Forces. The aforesaid team has initiated an inquiry and asked the petitioner company to produce the documents relating to money transaction but no such documents have been provided and even the trade licence was not produced by the company.

¶33

Further, stand has been taken that the petitioner company is illegally doing its business without NBFC of Reserve Bank of India, so the offices were sealed and thereafter FIR was lodged against the company.

¶34

The respondent-Securities and Exchange Board of India (S.E.B.I) has filed affidavit in pursuance to the direction of this Court passed in I.A. No.6777 of 2013 whereby and whereunder it has been stated that SEBI has passed an order on 03.02.2014 under Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 directing the petitioner company not to collect any money from investors or launch or carry out any scheme which has been identified as a collective investment scheme in the order. It has further been directed that the petitioner company and its Directors/Promoters shall wind up the existing collective investment scheme and refund the money collected by the said company under the schemes with returns which are due to its

¶35

¶36

investors within a period of three months and submit a winding up and repayment report to SEBI failing which SEBI would initiate prosecution proceedings under the SEBI Act.

¶37

The respondent-Reserve Bank of India has filed affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the exact nature of business of the petitioner company is not clear and the operations of the company need to be verified. It has further been stated that since the petitioner company is not registered with Reserve Bank of India, the RBI could not conduct scrutiny of the books of accounts of the company under Section 45N of the RBI Act, 1934. Further, the petitioner company is not registered with Reserve Bank of India as NBFC.

¶38

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and after appreciating their arguments found the fact which is admitted to the extent that though the petitioners’ are claiming that they are doing the business of gold and silver coins but from the counter affidavits filed by the respondents it appears that they are also involved in non-banking activities like collecting money from the customers without NBFC of Reserve Bank of India.

¶39

8. It requires to refer herein the objects and intents of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 which is an Act to constitute a Reserve Bank of India to regulate the issue of Bank notes and the keeping of reserves with a view to securing monetary

¶40

¶41

stability in (India) and generally to operate the currency and credit system of the country to its advantage.

¶42

The amendment Act has come in the year 1997 being Amendment Act 23 of 1997 keeping the objects and reasons to regulate the activities of the non-banking institutions and unincorporated bodies receiving deposits are regulated in terms of the provisions of Chapters III-B and III-C of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 respectively.

¶43

9. The reference of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is also required to be made herein which has been enacted in order to provide for the establishment of a Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

¶44

The legislation has been made by way of amendment being Amendment Act 59 of 2002 with the objects and reasons for establishment of a Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

¶45

10. This Court, therefore, is of the view after going through the objects and intents of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 which stipulates about the operation of the non-banking institutions and unincorporated bodies receiving deposits are

¶46

¶47

regulated in terms of the provisions of Chapters III-B and III-C while on the other hand, the objects and intents of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, meaning thereby, if any non-banking financial companies has been created that must be within the scope of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and only after its creation in terms of the provision of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the question of protecting the interests of the investors in securities and to promote the development, will come into play.

¶48

11. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid legal position has proceeded to examine the factual aspects in order to come to the conclusion about the legality and propriety of the impugned decision of the authorities, therefore, this Court is of the opinion to first look into the creation of the petitioner company as to whether the same have been created in pursuance to the provision of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 or not?

¶49

12. It would be evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Reserve Bank of India that the certificate of registration has not been obtained under the provision as contained under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 rather the company has been registered under the Society Registration Act and therefore, this Court is of

¶50

¶51

the considered view that in absence of any certificate of registration(CoR) under the Reserve Bank of India, Act 1934, the institution cannot be allowed to run the activities by accepting the deposits etc.

¶52

13. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-S.E.B.I. has submitted that since the petitioner company is not running in pursuance to the provision of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, therefore, keeping the objects and intents of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, even if any inquiry would be conducted the factual scenario pertaining to non-registration under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, will not be changed.

¶53

14. This Court after considering the aforesaid submission is in agreement thereto as because so long as the institution is not registered under the provision of Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, there cannot be any meaning of regulating by virtue of S.E.B.I. Act, 1992. The reason being that when the constitution of the company itself dehors the rule, there is no question of regulating it under the S.E.B.I. Act, 1992. It has also been informed that with respect to the affairs of this company, FIR has been instituted and now the matter is being looked into by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶54

15. This court in view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances and as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that the prohibitory order passed by the

¶55

¶56

authority in pursuance to the raid/enquiry conducted by the concerned authority and if such decision has been taken, the same cannot be faulted with.

¶57

16. In view of such finding, this Court is not inclined to pass any positive direction.

¶58

17. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶59

18. Consequently, I.A. No. 5458 of 2017 also stands disposed of.

¶60

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶61

Birendra/-

Green Ray International Limited Represented by Its General Manager Sk Nurul Hossain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Green Ray International Limited Represented by Its General Manager Sk Nurul Hossain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand Laghu Ewam Madhyam Samachar Patra Sangh Through Its Convenor Arun Kumar Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt Vs James Surin

Ramdhani Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Inter Silli College through Its Lecturer Harish Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Kedia Vs Transport