Public depositor repayment claims are maintainable under the Companies Act despite non-membership and rejected procedural objections.

A non-member public depositor was held entitled to seek repayment under Section 73(4) because Section 76(2) applies the Chapter V deposit framework mutatis mutandis to deposits accepted from the public and operates with overriding effect. The objection that the petition was not maintainable for want of membership was rejected. Procedural objections based on non-service of the Regional Director and Registrar of Companies were also rejected, as that service requirement was treated as inapplicable to a Section 73(4) petition. No insolvency bar was shown, so default was found proved and repayment with interest was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a depositor who is not a member of the company can maintain a petition for repayment of deposits under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 in the light of Section 76(2) of the Act. (ii) Whether the petition was liable to fail for non-service on the Regional Director and Registrar of Companies, and whether the pendency of insolvency petitions barred relief.

Issue (i): Whether a depositor who is not a member of the company can maintain a petition for repayment of deposits under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 in the light of Section 76(2) of the Act.

Analysis: The petition was founded on repayment of fixed deposits accepted by the company from a person admittedly not shown as a member. The statutory scheme was read as applying Chapter V provisions to deposits accepted from the public through Section 76(2), which operates notwithstanding Section 73 and gives Section 76 an overriding effect. On that reasoning, the remedy under Section 73(4) was treated as available mutatis mutandis to a public depositor.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected, and the petition was held maintainable in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition was liable to fail for non-service on the Regional Director and Registrar of Companies, and whether the pendency of insolvency petitions barred relief.

Analysis: The requirement of serving the Regional Director and Registrar of Companies was held to arise only for applications under Section 76(2) and Section 74(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, and not for a petition under Section 73(4). As to insolvency, no admission order or moratorium was shown, so no legal bar to adjudication was established. The company also did not give a satisfactory answer for non-payment and did not dispute the liability to refund.

Conclusion: The procedural objections and the insolvency-based objection were rejected, and default was found proved.

Final Conclusion: The deposit claim was upheld and the company was directed to repay the matured amount with interest, the petitioner succeeding on the core dispute regarding enforceability of the deposit liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where deposits are accepted from a non-member public depositor, the Chapter V deposit framework applies mutatis mutandis through Section 76(2), and objections based solely on membership or on RD/ROC service requirements not applicable to Section 73(4) cannot defeat a repayment claim absent a demonstrated statutory bar.

---