1987 (1) TMI 452 - SC - Companies Law

Whether Peerless Company was a miscellaneous Non-Banking Company within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Miscellaneous Non-Banking Companies (Reserve Bank Directions 1973) or a financial institution which was not such a miscellaneous banking company? Whether the Endowment Scheme piloted by the Company falls within the definition of prize chit? Whether these companies are not speculative ventures floated to attract unwary and credulous investors and capture their savings? Held that - Appeal dismissed. If the Reserve Bank of India considers the Peerless Company with eight Hundred Crores invested in Government Securities Fixed Deposits with National Banks etc. unsafe for depositors one wonders what they have to say about the mushroom non-banking companies which are accepting deposits promising most unlikely returns and what action is proposed to be taken to protect the investors. It does not require much imagination to realise the adventurous and precarious character of these businesses Urgent action appears to be called for to protect the public. While on the one hand these schemes encourage two vices affecting public economy the desire to make quick and easy money and the habit of excessive and wasteful consumer spending on the other hand the investors who generally belong to the gullible and less affluent classes have no security whatsoever. Action appears imperative.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(a) Whether the Endowment Certificate Scheme operated by the company falls within the definition of "prize chit" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978;

(b) Whether the scheme constitutes a prize chit or money circulation scheme prohibited by Section 3 of the Act;

(c) The scope and ambit of the term "prize chit" in the context of the legislative intent, statutory definitions, and prior judicial precedents;

(d) The applicability and effect of the Reserve Bank of India's Directions issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, particularly the Miscellaneous Non-Banking Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1973 and 1977, and the Non-Banking Financial Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1977, on the company's business;

(e) The interpretation of inclusive definitions under the Act, especially the meaning and scope of the word "includes" in Section 2(e); and

(f) The public interest considerations arising from the operation of the scheme, including the protection of depositors and the regulation of financial institutions.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Whether the Endowment Scheme is a "Prize Chit" under Section 2(e) of the Act and thus prohibited

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 defines "prize chit" in Section 2(e) as any scheme involving collection of money by way of contributions or subscriptions and utilizing such money for (i) awarding prizes or gifts periodically to specified subscribers, or (ii) refunding subscriptions with or without bonus or interest on termination or expiry of the scheme, but excluding conventional chits. Section 3 prohibits promotion, conduct, or participation in prize chits or money circulation schemes. The leading precedent is the three-Judge bench decision in Srinivasa Enterprises v. Union of India, which construed the definition of "prize chit" and the legislative intent behind the Act.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the nature of the Endowment Certificate Scheme, which is essentially a recurring deposit scheme without any element of chance, prize, or gift. The scheme involves fixed annual subscriptions over a period (10 to 30 years), with guaranteed repayment of principal and a fixed bonus. There is no lottery, gambling, or prize element. The Court emphasized that the definition of "prize chit" requires both the awarding of prizes or gifts and the refunding of subscriptions, and these are twin attributes that must be satisfied. The exclusion of conventional chits, which involve both certain and chance elements, further supports the interpretation that schemes without a prize element are not "prize chits."

The Court rejected the argument that the definition is disjunctive and that refunding subscriptions alone brings a scheme within the definition. It held that the inclusive definition is intended to cover all schemes of the nature of prize chits under different names, not to extend to all recurring deposit schemes. The Court relied heavily on the contextual and purposive interpretation of the Act, the legislative history including the reports of the Bhabatosh Datta and Raj Study Groups, and the mischief the Act sought to remedy-namely, the exploitation of poor, ignorant subscribers by schemes involving gambling or lottery elements.

Key evidence and findings: The scheme's terms, actuarial accounts, the absence of any prize or chance element, and the comparison with Life Insurance Corporation policies and conventional chit funds were considered. The Court noted the scheme's low yield and some harsh forfeiture clauses (later deleted) but found these insufficient to characterize it as a prize chit.

Application of law to facts: The Court concluded that the Endowment Scheme does not fall within the statutory definition of a prize chit and thus is not prohibited by the Act.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Reserve Bank and the Union of India contended that the scheme fell within the definition due to the collection and refund of money, emphasizing the inclusive language of the statute. The company argued the scheme was a legitimate recurring deposit scheme without prize elements and thus outside the Act's scope. The Court sided with the company, finding that the legislative intent and statutory context exclude such schemes from the ban.

Conclusions: The Endowment Scheme is not a prize chit under Section 2(e) and is not prohibited by the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

Issue (c): Interpretation of the term "prize chit" and the scope of the inclusive definition

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the statutory definition in Section 2(e), the use of the word "includes," and precedents such as Dilworth's case and the Srinivasa Enterprises judgment.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court explained that inclusive definitions serve to enlarge or clarify the meaning of terms to encompass all transactions of a similar nature, not to extend the meaning to every conceivable transaction involving some aspect of the defined term. The word "includes" was interpreted in light of the context and legislative purpose, not as an exhaustive or all-encompassing term. The Court emphasized that both clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(e) must be satisfied to constitute a prize chit, and the exclusion of conventional chits supports a narrow interpretation.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that the scheme lacked the prize or gift element essential to the definition. The refunding of subscriptions alone does not suffice.

Conclusions: The inclusive definition was intended to cover all prize chit schemes under different names but not to include all recurring deposit schemes or similar financial arrangements.

Issue (d): Applicability of Reserve Bank of India Directions and regulation of the company

Relevant legal framework: The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, particularly Sections 45H to 45Q, and the Reserve Bank's Directions of 1973 and 1977 regulating non-banking financial companies.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the company had been granted exemption from certain provisions of the 1973 Directions subject to conditions, which it complied with. The company's business was recognized as a financial institution under the Directions, but the Court did not decide on the company's status definitively in this appeal, leaving open the question of exemption or applicability of Directions. The Court acknowledged the Reserve Bank's regulatory role but emphasized that the present appeals could be decided without resolving this issue.

Application of law to facts: The company's scheme exceeded the maximum deposit period prescribed by the Directions, but exemption had been granted earlier and later cancelled. The company challenged the applicability of the Prize Chits Act but did not challenge the Directions directly in this appeal.

Conclusions: The Court left open the question of the company's status under the Directions and the Reserve Bank's regulatory powers, focusing instead on the Prize Chits Act issue.

Issue (e): Public interest and protection of depositors

Court's observations: The Court expressed deep concern about the proliferation of financial schemes targeting middle and lower middle-class investors, especially in rural areas, who are often ignorant of the risks. The Court highlighted the incentive structure of the company's agents, which favored collection of first-year subscriptions but neglected subsequent collections, resulting in forfeiture of deposits and loss to subscribers. The Court also criticized the harsh forfeiture clauses in schemes, including those of the Life Insurance Corporation, which disproportionately affect poorer policyholders.

The Court suggested that the Life Insurance Corporation and other institutions should consider revising forfeiture clauses to protect vulnerable depositors and that authorities should devise fool-proof regulatory schemes to prevent exploitation. The Court also queried the Reserve Bank and government authorities about their actions against the mushrooming of speculative non-banking financial companies offering exorbitant interest rates and prizes, warning of the risks to gullible investors and the public economy.

Conclusions: While the company's scheme was not banned under the Prize Chits Act, there is a pressing need for regulatory oversight and reform to protect depositors and employees from exploitation and financial harm.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The quint-essential aspects of a prize chit are that the organizer collects moneys in lumpsum or installments, pursuant to a scheme or arrangement, and he utilises such moneys as he fancies primarily for his private appetite and for (1) awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers, prizes in cash or kind and (2) refunding to the subscribers the whole or part of the money collected on the termination of the scheme or otherwise."

"The injury to the community is substantial, so that a welfare state dedicated to the Directive Principles of Part IV has to awake and protect the vulnerable sector."

"Once the prize facet of the chit scheme is given up, it becomes substantially a 'conventional chit' and the ban of the law ceases to operate."

"The word 'includes'... was intended not to expand the meaning of 'prize chit' but to cover all transactions or arrangements of the nature of prize chits but under different names."

"The two requirements mentioned in the two clauses (i) and (ii) of the definition are not to be read disjunctively; they are two distinct attributes of 'Prize Chits', each of which has to be satisfied."

"We arrive at the conclusion that s.2(e) does not contemplate a scheme without a prize and, therefore, the Endowment Certificate Scheme of the Peerless Company is outside the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act."

"It is open to [the authorities] to take such steps as are open to them in law to regulate schemes such as those run by the Peerless Company to prevent exploitation of ignorant subscribers."

"We must also record our dissatisfaction with some of the schemes of the Life Insurance Corporation which appear to us to be even less advantageous to the subscribers than the Peerless Scheme."

"We suggest that there should be a complete ban on forfeiture clauses in all savings schemes, including Life Insurance Policies, since these clauses hit hardest the classes of people who need security and protection most."

"Urgent action appears to be called for to protect the public" from the mushroom growth of speculative non-banking financial companies offering exorbitant returns and prizes.

The appeals filed by the Reserve Bank of India, the Union of India, and the State of West Bengal were dismissed on the ground that the Endowment Scheme does not fall within the statutory definition of a prize chit and is therefore not prohibited by the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

← Previous Next →