TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Co-operative banks qualify as Financial Establishments under Section 2(d) MPID Act despite Banking Regulation Act oversight</h1> <h3>Rajendrakumar Aatmaram Agarwal Versus The State of Maharashtra; Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank; Mr. Rajendra Gandhi And Achyut Versus Rajendrakumar Aatmaram Agarwal; State of Maharashtra And Krishnanath Vishnu Waykar; Sulochana Asaram Bhujbal; Ashok Maruti Suryawanshi; Sidharth Kamlakar Shelke; Versus Rajendrakumar Atmaram Agrawalm And Ors.</h3> Rajendrakumar Aatmaram Agarwal Versus The State of Maharashtra; Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank; Mr. Rajendra Gandhi And Achyut Versus Rajendrakumar ... Issues Involved:1. Quashment of Crime No. 121/2022.2. Applicability of the MPID Act to Co-operative Banks.3. Interpretation of 'Financial Establishment' under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act.Summary:Issue 1: Quashment of Crime No. 121/2022This writ petition was filed u/s 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Crime No. 121/2022 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, and subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Ahmednagar, for offences punishable u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).Issue 2: Applicability of the MPID Act to Co-operative BanksThe petitioner challenged the applicability of the MPID Act to the co-operative bank, arguing that the bank falls under the definition of a 'banking company' as per Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR Act), and thus should be excluded from the MPID Act. The petitioner cited the amendment to Section 56 of the BR Act, which extends its provisions to co-operative societies, asserting that this amendment implies exclusion from the MPID Act.Issue 3: Interpretation of 'Financial Establishment' under Section 2(d) of the MPID ActThe court examined whether a co-operative bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is excluded from the MPID Act. The definition of 'Financial Establishment' u/s 2(d) of the MPID Act excludes a 'banking company' as defined under Section 5(c) of the BR Act. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule Vs. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd., arguing that co-operative banks fall under the BR Act and should be excluded from the MPID Act.Court's Analysis and Conclusion:The court held that the MPID Act and the BR Act operate in different spheres. The MPID Act aims to protect investors from fraudulent financial establishments, while the BR Act regulates the functioning of banking companies. The court emphasized that the definition of 'Financial Establishment' in the MPID Act does not exclude co-operative banks unless they are owned and controlled by the State or Central Government. The court found that the legislative intent was not to exclude co-operative banks from the MPID Act, despite their regulation under the BR Act.Final Judgment:The Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court ruled that the MPID Act applies to the co-operative bank in question. Pending criminal applications were disposed of, and the rule was discharged.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
