Corporate advances versus loans: true character of the transaction controlled relief from alleged statutory contravention.

Advances made by one company to another were not automatically loans for purposes of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956; their character depended on the parties' intention and the surrounding circumstances. The Court held that the statutory term "loan" had to be construed in its proper sense and not so widely as to treat every placement of money with another corporate body as a loan. On the materials before it, the amounts were not shown to be loans in the statutory sense. The petitioners were therefore entitled to relief under section 633, with protection against the alleged contravention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advances made by the company to another company were loans within section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956 so as to attract the alleged contravention and deprive the petitioners of relief under section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The distinction between a deposit and a loan is not merely verbal; the true nature of the transaction depends on the intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. A deposit may not necessarily be a loan, and the statutory context of section 370 required the word "loan" to be construed in its proper sense and not so widely as to bring every placement of money with another corporate body within its scope. The Court noted that if deposits with corporate bodies were treated as loans, deposits with scheduled banks would also fall within section 370, which would be an inconsistent construction. The materials before the Court did not establish that the impugned amounts were advanced as loans in the statutory sense.

Conclusion: The advances were not loans within the meaning of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the petitioners were entitled to relief under section 633.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the petitioners obtained protection against the alleged statutory contravention.

Ratio Decidendi: In construing a provision regulating loans, a monetary placement must be characterised according to its true nature, and a deposit is not to be automatically treated as a loan unless the transaction, on its facts, shows that character.

---