Mpid Act Legal Dispute

Lindia is a country located in the South-East Asian region with its laws pari materia with India. Lindia comprises * states, including Modisha, which is situated in the southeastern part of the country. The local laws of Modisha are pari materia with the laws of Odisha, located in the southeastern region of India. Since *, many organizations, including both registered and unregistered corporations, have emerged in Lindia. These organizations primarily engage in the business of collecting public deposits, promising high returns over a specified period. A few corporations, particularly in the real estate sector, accepted deposits from the public, offering plots of land on easy monthly installments. They also provided an option to refund the deposit with interest if the depositor opted not to proceed with the property purchase. From * to *, numerous complaints were filed by the public, citing default by many of these corporations and organizations in returning the deposits along with the promised interest. Widespread public protests ensued, with thousands expressing their grievances over the loss of their hard-earned money to these corporations. Consequently, the State Government of Modisha, led by the majority party, Vaje Janta Dal (VJD), enacted The Modisha Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, * (MPID Act). The intent was to enable the attachment and auctioning of properties held by defaulting organizations to use the proceeds for refunding affected depositors. The provisions of the MPID Act is pari materia with the provisions of the Odisha Protection of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, * (OPID Act). A corporation named Pegasus Realcon Offices Global Pvt. Ltd. (PRO Global), a real estate company established in *, operated in real estate development, offering plots to clients on part-payment terms. PRO Global accepted advance payments from clients, with plots to be delivered upon payment completion. To achieve its objectives, PRO Global acquired large tracts of land across Modisha, dividing them into smaller plots for sale to its extensive client base. However, common issues in the real estate sector, such as due diligence and title disputes, led to litigation in various civil courts. Several injunction orders were issued by these courts, restraining PRO Global from alienating its properties. As a result, many potential buyers of PRO Global could not obtain sale deeds, leading to a loss of confidence in the company and a flood of complaints for advance payment refunds. These complaints, filed at police stations across different districts in Odisha, received extensive media coverage, leading to the arrest of PRO Global's Managing Director, Mr. Rahudhar Mena, and co-director, Ms. Shandar Malini, in *. They were later released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Modisha. During the investigation, it was discovered that Mr. Mena and Ms. Malini had collected a substantial sum of Rs. * crore (Rupees Four Hundred and Sixty-Two Crores Only) by promising land to unsuspecting prospective buyers. The extensive media attention drew the government's notice, leading to the attachment of PRO Global's properties-amounting to * acres and the freezing of bank accounts with a balance of Rs. * crore (Rupees Two Hundred and Forty-Six Crores Only) under Section * of the MPID Act. Criminal cases were also filed under Section * of the MPID Act, along with other provisions from the Lindia Nyaya Sanhita, *, which is pari materia with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, *. These property attachments were intended for auction to facilitate refunds to the depositors.Due to the vast extent of PRO Global's property holdings, the State Government was unable to identify all of them, resulting in certain properties not being attached. In *, Mrs. Mahesweta Menapati, Director of a real estate company, Raktagiri Real Estate (RRE), purchased properties not attached under the MPID Act. The proceeds from these sales were independently distributed by PRO Global to some depositors who had filed complaints. However, a substantial number of people remained who had not received refunds for their deposits with PRO Global. The State Government, acting under the MPID Act, also attached properties purchased by RRE on the basis that, as these properties were originally owned by PRO Global, they could be subject to attachment under Section * of the MPID Act. Meanwhile, Lindia passed the Real Estate Regulation Act (LRR Act) in *, which is pari materia with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, * in India. This Act provides remedies for prospective buyers not provided with properties by real estate companies, prompting many buyers to file complaints with the authority established under the LRR Act. Mr. Rahudhar Mena and Ms. Shandar Malini, on behalf of PRO Global, filed a writ petition under Articles * and * of the Constitution of Lindia, challenging the State Government's actions. They argued that, as real estate companies, they should fall under the provisions of the LRR Act, not the MPID Act. They claimed that the application of the MPID Act to them was arbitrary, illegal, and perverse, asserting they should not be subject to two statutes. Separately, Mrs. Mahesweta Menapati, on behalf of RRE, filed an application under Articles * and *, challenging the State Government's attachment of RRE's properties. She contended that there was no legal impediment at the time of purchase and that RRE, not being a financial establishment with no complaints against it, should not have its properties attached under the MPID Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Modisha clubbed the applications filed by PRO Global and RRE. In a joint order, the Court held that both PRO Global and RRE are financial establishments governed by the MPID Act, not the LRR Act, emphasizing that the LRR Act is not retrospective and does not apply to this factual scenario. Aggrieved by this decision, both PRO Global and RRE filed separate Special Leave Petitions (SLP) before the Hon'ble Apex Court of Lindia, challenging the High Court's order. The Hon'ble Apex Court consolidated both SLPs, and after detailed hearings, reserved its judgment. THE ODISHA PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF DEPOSITORS (IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS) ACT, * Section *. Attachment of properties on default of return of deposit. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,- (i) where, upon complaints received from a number of depositors that any Financial Establishment defaults the return of deposits after maturity or fails to pay interest on deposit or fails to provide the service for which deposit has been made, or (ii) where the Government have reason to believe that any Financial Establishment is acting in a calculated manner with an intention to defraud the depositors, and if the Government are satisfied that such Financial Establishment is not likely to return the deposits or to make payment of interest or to provide the service, the Government may, in order to protect the interest of the depositors of such Financial Establishment, pass an ad-interim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the Financial Establishment or in the name of any other person from and out of the deposits collected by the Financial Establishment, or if it transpires that such money or other property is not available for attachment or not sufficient for repayment of the deposits, such other property of the said Financial Establishment or the Promoter, Director, Partner or Manager or Member of the said Financial Establishment or a person who has borrowed money from the Financial Establishment to the extent of his default or such other properties of that person in whose name properties were purchased from and out of the deposits collected by the Financial Establishment, as the Government may think fit and transfer the control over the said money or property to the Competent Authority. Section *. Default in Repayment of deposits and interests honouring the commitment Notwithstanding anything contained in section *, where any Financial Establishment defaults the return of the deposit or defaults the payment of interest on the deposit or fails to return in any kind or fails to render service for which the deposit have been made, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine. which may extend to one lakh rupees and such Financial Establishment is also liable for a fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.

The attachment does not violate fundamental rights, as it aims to protect the interests of depositors.The LRR Act, *, cannot be applied retrospectively. repugnancy between a state law (MPID Act) and a central law (LRR Act), the central law prevails. However, the LRR Act is not retrospective and does not apply toThe Act is valid as it aims to safeguard depositors' interests.The MPID Act applies as both companies are classified as financial establishments.

repugnancy between a state law (MPID Act) and a central law (LRR Act), the central law prevails. However, the LRR Act is not retrospective and does not apply to