JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. Oral:- Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the orders dated 19.6.2001 have been complied with. Objections have been removed. Compilation be takert on record. Coy. Petition No.6 of 2001 2. Admit. Notice returnable within six weeks. Coy. Application No. 29 of 2001 3. The petitioner Reserve Bank of India has filed this Company Petition, under Section 45 MC of the Reserve Bank of India Act ("RBI Act" for short) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act for winding up of respondent Company. According to the petitioner-Bank, the respondent is a Non Banking Financial Company within the meaning of Section 45- I(f) of the RBI Act. Case of the petitioner-Bank is that the respondent Company submitted an application in July 1997 for issuance of a Certificate of Registration under the provisions "of Section 45-IA of the RBI Act. To consider this application an inspection was carried out regarding the financial health of the Company on 31.3.1997. This inspection was conducted by M/s. P.L. Mittal & Company, Chartered Accountants. On inspection, it was found that the Net Owned Fund of the company was at (-) Rs.886.66 lacs as on 31.3.1997 whereas the public deposits held by the Company were to the tune of Rs.737 lacs on 31.3.1999. The Capital to Risk Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR) was assessed to be nil. The out side liabilities of the company were Rs.1167.99 lacs as on 31.3.1997 as against the assets of Rs.742.50 lacs on that date. The company, in the circumstances, in the opinion of the petitioner-Bank was not solvent. The company, according to the petitioner-Bank failed to maintain liquid assets as contemplated under Section 45 IB of the Act. It violated concentration norms and had high level of Non Performing Assets. The respondent-Company was found to have invested huge amount in the immovable property. It was also discovered by the petitioner-Bank that the respondent-Company had advanced huge sums to Himachal Grameen Sanchayka, a partnership firm, Sanohayka Mail, a proprietary concern and Sanchayka India Ltd. in which the directors of the company were interested. The auditors in the report pointed out that the respondent-Company had violated the various provisions of Non-Banking Financial Companies Acceptance of Public Deposits (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998. The petitioner-Bank also scrutinized the books of the Company on 9.8.1998. Such scrutiny disclosed violation of the directions issued by the petitioner-Bank. 4. The auditors in the report pointed out that the respondent-Company had violated the various provisions of Non-Banking Financial Companies Acceptance of Public Deposits (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998. The petitioner-Bank also scrutinized the books of the Company on 9.8.1998. Such scrutiny disclosed violation of the directions issued by the petitioner-Bank. 4. In these circumstances, noticed above, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent-Company on September 24, 1999 calling upon it to show cause as to why its application for Certificate of Registration may not be rejected (Annexure VI). The respondent-Company did not offer any explanation to the show cause notice. However, vide letter dated 26.10.1999 requested the petitioner-Bank to give time up to December 15, 1999 (Annexure VII). 5. According to the petitioner-bank, taking into consideration the relevant facts, affairs of the Company and failure of the company to comply with the statutory provisions of the RBI Act and directions issued by the petitioner-Bank vide its orders dated January 7, 2000 rejected the application of the respondent-Company for issuance of Certificate of Registration under Section 45 IA of the RBI Act. The Company was disqualified under Section 45 IA of the Act to carry on the business of a Non-Banking Institution. 6. The petitioner-Bank on January 18, 2000 in exercise of the powers under Section 45 MB (2) of the Act restrained the respondent-Company from accepting deposits from any person by way of renewal or otherwise. The respondent-Company was also directed not to sell, transfer, create charge or mortgage or deal in any manner with its property without prior written permission of the petitioner-Bank till further orders. 7. The petitioner-Bank, it is stated, received large number of complaints, complaining about non-payment of deposits by the depositors with the Company, it was discovered that large number of complaints were pending before the various consumer disputes Redressal Forums in the State. Taking all these factors into consideration the petitioner-Bank took a view that Company was unable to pay its debts. 8. It is in this background, petitioner-Bank prays for winding up of the company. 9. By this application, petitioner-Bank prays for the appointment of Provisional Liquidator without notice. According to the petitioner, the district Consumer Forum Shimla has directed the auction of the properties of the respondent-Company in execution of the awards to some of the depositors passed by Consumer forum. It is in this background, petitioner-Bank prays for winding up of the company. 9. By this application, petitioner-Bank prays for the appointment of Provisional Liquidator without notice. According to the petitioner, the district Consumer Forum Shimla has directed the auction of the properties of the respondent-Company in execution of the awards to some of the depositors passed by Consumer forum. The sale of some of the properties was scheduled to be held on 30th and 31st August, 2001. 10. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank prays that if properties of the respondent-Company are auctioned at the instance of few depositors in execution of the award(s) passed in their favour by District consumer Redressal Forum then it will result in grave injustice to the majority of the depositors who have not been able to approach the Consumer Forum in as much as they would never be able to get repayment of their deposits. Execution of those awards, it is contended, would be detrimental to the interest of class of depositors as a whole, particularly the poorer and the less informed depositors who could not afford or otherwise were disabled to approach the Forums. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank submits that it is necessary in the larger Public Interest that Provisional Liquidator without notice to the respondent-Company is appointed. Mr. Sharma, further contends that issuance of such notice would be counter productive and jeopardies the winding up petition filed by the petitioner-Bank. 11. Having heard Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the entirety of the circumstances, as detailed in the petition and the application on the affidavit of Sh. Sardana Singh, General Manager, Department of Non-Banking supervision, Reserve Bank of India, chandigarh, and the fact that the Bank has satisfied itself that respondent-Company is unable to pay its debts and has prohibited the Company from receiving deposits vide its order dated 18.1.2000 (Annexure IX and fact that Certificate of Registration has been declined to the Company by the petitioner-Bank vide orders dated 7.1.2000 (Annexure VIII), petitioner-Bank in my view is prima facie entitled to ask for winding up of the respondent-Company. 12. Section 450 of the companies Act provides for the appointment of a provisional liquidator without issuance of notice to the Company for special reasons. 13. 12. Section 450 of the companies Act provides for the appointment of a provisional liquidator without issuance of notice to the Company for special reasons. 13. Taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and application, detailed above, I am satisfied that it is necessary to appoint a Provisional Liquidator without issuance of notice of the respondent-Company to protect and preserve the assets of the Company pending the orders of winding up iii larger public interest particularly in the interest of majority of the depositors of the respondent-Company and also for the reasons that the assets of the respondent-Company are not transferred, alienated or otherwise dealt with save and except in the interest of the depositors. 14. I accordingly allow this application and appoint Official Liquidator, attached to this Court, with all such powers as Provisional Liquidator of the respondent-Company with a direction to immediately take charge of the Companys property, assets books of accounts and other relevant papers and documents. 15. The applications disposed of Coy. Application No. 10 of 2001 16. In view of the order passed in the Coy .Application No.29 of 2001, this application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. Copy Dasti on usual charges. -