PRABHAKAR DATTATRAYA GUNE Vs. VISHNUKANT BAPURAO URANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these matters, the contention that is raised by Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 793 (K.K.Baskaran v/s State represented by its Secretary, Tamil Nadu and others) overruling that of a Full Bench of this Court Vijay C. Puljal v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 4 CTC 705, will not conclude the matter and particularly the question that the Maharashtra Enactment, namely, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short "MPID Act, 1999") cannot encroach or usurp the field occupied by the laws of Parliament. In his submission, the field in this case is occupied by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) The present cases deal with non banking financial company. When such company invites deposits and the depositors invest their monies in them, the grievance of such depositors and investors can be taken note of by the Redressal Mechanism provided in the Indian Companies Act, 1956. They cannot approach the authorities under the State Act and particularly alleging offences punishable thereunder because the Parliament Statute enacts penal provisions as well. Mr.Pradhan submits that this question and issue has not been answered and dealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment in Baskaran's case.

(3.) Mr.Pradhan submits that now the Petitioners have obtained a clarification from the Honourable Supreme Court on this point and therefore, after being shown the Supreme Court order, we have allowed Mr.Pradhan to elaborate his contentions and have heard him at length.