Share application money before 2014 stayed outside the later deposit regime, so no penal interest or writ relief followed.

Share application money paid in 2010 was governed by the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, because the Companies Act, 2013 and the 2014 Rules came into force only from 1 April 2014; those later provisions were therefore inapplicable. Amounts received as subscription to shares pending allotment fall outside the definition of deposit under the 1975 Rules, so the payment could not be treated as a deposit. As a result, no penal interest arose and writ relief against the official respondents was declined, leaving the petitioner to pursue other available remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 applied to share application money paid in 2010; (ii) whether the amount in question could be treated as a deposit attracting penal interest and writ relief.

Issue (i): Whether the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 applied to share application money paid in 2010.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 came into force only from 1 April 2014. The payment in question was made in 2010, long before that date. The governing framework for such pre-2014 share application money was therefore the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, not the later enactment and rules.

Conclusion: The Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 were held inapplicable to the transaction.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount in question could be treated as a deposit attracting penal interest and writ relief.

Analysis: Under Rule 2(b)(vii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, money received as subscription to shares pending allotment is excluded from the definition of deposit. The amount paid by the petitioner was share application money and, on the facts, did not acquire the character of a deposit. Since the amount was not a deposit, the claim for penal interest did not arise. The grievance against the Registrar and Ministry also lay outside the scope of writ intervention, as the dispute was essentially contractual and the petitioner was left to pursue other available remedies.

Conclusion: The amount was not treated as a deposit, penal interest was not payable, and writ relief was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not entertained because the statutory regime relied upon by the petitioner did not govern the transaction and the dispute did not justify invocation of writ jurisdiction against the official respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Share application money paid before the commencement of the Companies Act, 2013 remains governed by the earlier deposit regime, and amounts received as subscriptions pending allotment are excluded from the definition of deposit; therefore, no penal interest or writ enforcement follows on that basis.

---