Even 'Loan' Can Qualify As 'Deposit' Under MPID Act; Private Individual Can Be 'Financial Establishment' : Supreme Court

<p>In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 15) observed that even private persons can be categorized as a 'Financial Establishment' under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act. This means that money advanced by an individual to a debtor with a promise to return with interest, then such money can be legally treated as a “deposit,” even if the parties describe it as a “loan”.</p><p>A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice NV Anjaria set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench decision, which refused to consider the Appellant's money advanced to the Respondent as a 'deposit' under the MPID Act to attract penal consequences.</p><p>The dispute arose from transactions between the appellants and private respondents relating to the development of a resort project at Tadoba, Maharashtra. Between September 2016 and April 2019, the appellants advanced approximately Rs. 2.51 crore to the respondents.</p><p>According to the appellants, the respondents had promised repayment by December 31, 2019 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, payable quarterly in advance. However, the amount was allegedly not repaid.</p><p>The appellants pursued several legal remedies over the years, including legal notices, complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, civil recovery suits, and criminal complaints alleging cheating and breach of trust under the IPC. However, the authorities and courts repeatedly treated the dispute as civil in nature.</p><p>Eventually, the appellants invoked the provisions of the MPID Act and sought action under Section 3 against the respondents for fraudulent default.</p><p>The Sessions Court rejected the plea, and the Bombay High Court upheld that decision, holding that the transaction was merely a private loan dispute and did not fall within the scope of the MPID Act.</p><p>Aggrieved, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.</p><p>Setting aside the impugned order, the Court rejected the respondent's contention that the transaction was a loan and cannot be treated as a 'deposit' to bring it under the ambit of the MPID Act. Instead, the Court said the nomenclature of the transaction hardly matters when the essential ingredients of the transaction, being a 'deposit', stand fulfilled.</p><p>“Nomenclature of the transaction is not relevant. It is not the nomenclature but the ingredients or the basic attributes with which the transaction is informed and characterised that would make and mould the transaction to become “deposit” under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act.”, the court observed, pointing out that “What is to be underlined is that the import of “deposit” under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act is wide enough so as to include the acceptance of money in any manner, whatever may be the nomenclature. Similarly, the definition of “Financial Establishment” in Section 2(d) uses the group of words “any person accepting deposit” and “in any other manner” to spread its net or coverage.”</p><p>Since, the necessary ingredients of the transaction being a deposit stands fulfilled i.e., first there should be any receipt of money or acceptance of a valuable commodity by a financial establishment, second, the acceptance contemplated should be returnable after a specified period and third, the return of such money or commodity could be in cash, kind, with or without any benefit of interest, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria observed that “even if lending of money by the appellants to respondent Nos.2 to 6 was to be treated and termed as “loan”, it would remain a “deposit” in the nature of money received by respondent Nos.2 to 6 who have the robes of “financial establishment” as contemplated under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act.”</p><p>In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, entitling the Appellants to invoke Section 3 of the MPID Act and pursue remedies under the statute.</p><p>Cause Title: ALKA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS</p><p>Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 507</p><p>Click here to download judgment</p><p>Appearance:</p><p>For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Hegde, AOR Ms. Bhargavi Bhardwaj, Adv.</p><p>For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR</p>