Judgment 1. Almost a year ago the petitioner challenged the order cf the High Court dated 21 July 2000 (Annexure 9/1) in a Letters Patent Appeal No. 26 of 2000 : Helios Finance & Investment Ltd. V/s. The Union of India and ors. The issue brought in the writ petition, in effect, was that the company had been restrained from functioning by the Reserve Bank of India. This order of the High Court was challenged by the petitioner, Helios Finance & Investment Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), by Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17859 of 2000. On 13 November 2000, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. 2. What has been challenged in the present petition is the order of the appellate authority of a case arising under section 45-IA. (7) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The appellate authority is constituted under the Act to consider appeals preferred to the Centra! Government by any ncn-banking financial company against an order by the Reserve Bank of India. Thus, when the Reserve Bank of India rejected the petitioners application by its order dated 10 August 1998 (Annexure 10), the Reserve Bank of India was of the view that the petitioner had failed to fulfil the conditions enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 45 IA of the Act. in the circumstances, a certificate of registeration to carry on business of a non-banking financial institution as contemplated under the aforesaid section could not be issued to the petitioners company. The application of the petitioners company was rejected. The Reserve Bank of India gave its reasons why it could not grant registration to the petitioner to carry on its business. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by its order dated 27 April 2001. The order is reproduced below : "Appeal case is taken up for hearing as scheduled. 2. The Appellate Authority constituted under sub-section 7 of Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to consider the appeals preferred to the Central Government by any NBFC aggrieved by the order of rejection of application by RBI held its hearing on 29.3.2001 at 3.30 P.M. in the case of M/s Helios Finance and Investment Ltd. 3. The Appellate Authority heard the companys spokesperson as well as the officers of the Reserve Bank of India (Respondent). The Appellate Authority heard the companys spokesperson as well as the officers of the Reserve Bank of India (Respondent). The companys spokesperson informed the Authority that the company had achieved the Net Owned Funds (NOS) of Rs. 29,28,711.72 as on 31.3.1997. The company had submitted Chartered Accountants Certificate regarding NOF. 4. RBI informed the Appellate Authority that the Net Owned Funds (NOF) of the company as assessed was negative to the extent of Rs. 708.67 lakhs. The realizable value of assets (Rs. 2710.34 lakhs) fell short of the outside liabilities (Rs. 3419.01). The company held public deposits of the order of Rs. 32.20 crores. The company made no provision for depreciation, bad and doubtful assets etc. The Company has not submitted Balance Sheets and Profit/Loss Accounts after 31.3.1997. The gap between realizable value of assets (Rs.2710.34 lakhs) and total deposit liabilities (3226 lakhs) as on 31.3.1997 stood at Rs. 515.66 lakhs. Earlier, the company was prohibited by the Bank from acceptance of public deposits and alienation of assets with effect from 15.7.1997. The Eastern Region Bench of the Company law Board, Calcutta has passed repayment order against the company vide Benchs Order dated 7.10.1997. The company has failed to reply to the Banks show cause notices issued to the company in this regard. The company also not informed about change of address to RBI. 5. Thus, we find no ground to accept any of the Pleas made by the petitioner. Petition is dismissed without granting any relief to the petitioner. All concerned should be informed accordingly." 4. This order is otherwise appended as Annexure 11 to the petition. 5. The appellate authority was of the view that the Net Owned Funds (NOS) as assessed were negative to the extent of Rs. 708.67 lakhs and the realizable value of assets at Rs. 2710.34 lakhs, fell short of the liabilities as Rs. 3419.01 while the appellate authority noticed the deposits standing at Rs. 32.20 crores. As from the record its assessment was that the company had made no provision for (I) (a) depreciation (b) bad debts and (c) doubtful assets (ll) Balance Sheets and Profit/Loss Accounts after 31 March 1997 had not been submitted and (lll) the gap between realizable value of assets, Rs. 2710.34 lakhs, and total deposit liabilities, Rs. 3226 lakhs, as on 31 March 1997 stood at Rs. 515.66 lakhs. 2710.34 lakhs, and total deposit liabilities, Rs. 3226 lakhs, as on 31 March 1997 stood at Rs. 515.66 lakhs. The appellate authority also noticed that earlier the petitioner had been prohibited by the Reserve Bank of India from acceptance of public deposits and alienation of assets with effect from 15 July 1997. Further, the appellate authority placed on record that the Company Law Board had directed the petitioner for repayment of moneys but the petitioner failed to respond to the Reserve Bank of Indias show cause notice in this regard. The registered address of the petitioners company was changed but the change of address was not intimated to the Reserve Bank of India. 6. In so far as the facts are concerned, these are matters of record and are nor disputed and an attempt has been made to explain the situation. 7. On the other hand, it is acknowledged that a winding up petition is pending at the High Court. The winding up petition normally would be brought at the instance of a creditor under the Companies Act 1956, particularly one who has made a formal demand for clearing a debt and the debt remains unsatisfied. But outside the Companies Act the law has also made provision to authorise the Reserve Bank of India to file a winding up petition when it comes to the conclusion that a non-banking financial company is in default. The court will revert to this aspect later. 8. What needs to be kept in mind is the position of the Reserve Bank of India. There can hardly be an issue that it had been structured sixty seven years ago to regulate currency, its reserves and with a view to secure monetary stability in India, and generally to operate the currency and credit system of the country to its advantage. There can be no issue that the position of the Reserve Bank of India is that one of a monetary monitor. It is obliged to operate the currency and the credit system of the nation to the advantage of the nation. If the actions of non-banking financial institutions affect, the public or contribute to investors indebtedness as a class, consequent upon a non- banking financial institution itself being in debt, then it is the concern of the Reserve Bank of India. 9. If the actions of non-banking financial institutions affect, the public or contribute to investors indebtedness as a class, consequent upon a non- banking financial institution itself being in debt, then it is the concern of the Reserve Bank of India. 9. Incorporated companies in generality may have a business either in manufacture or in retail marketing, or both. Yet there are companies which are in the business Of managing other peoples money but away from a formal banking system. The petitioner is one such company. It is the business of the petitioners company to invite deposits from the public. This fact is not in issue that the very nature of business of the petitioner company rests on the investments called from the public by deposits. There is an ancillary business also, that is, of dealing with real estate. 10. Thus, at every given time the petitioners company must be in a position to give confidence to the depositors to return their money on demand when refund was a stipulation as a commitment in an agreement. But, if the depositors begin to feel that their investments are in jeopardy then this is a dangerous signal and an assessment on this has been left on the Reserve Bank of India. 11. When methods of regulation fail then the law has given authority to the Reserve Bank of India in reference to a non- banking financial company to satisfy itself whether such a company is (a) unable to pay its debt; or (b) has by virtue of the provisions of section 45 IA become disqualified to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution; or (c) has been prohibited by the Bank from receiving deposits by an order and such order has been in force for a period of not less than three months; or (d) the continuance of the non-banking financial company is detrimental to the public interest or to the interest of depositors of the company. If any of these factors exists when the Reserve Bank of India is obliged by law, under Section 45 MC, to make an application for winding up of such a non-banking financial company. The presumption that a company is unable to pay its debts will arise should a non-banking financial company refuses or fails to meet within five working days any lawful demand made at any of its offices or branches. The presumption that a company is unable to pay its debts will arise should a non-banking financial company refuses or fails to meet within five working days any lawful demand made at any of its offices or branches. The assessment to certify such a situation has been given to the Reserve Bank of India. 12. A winding up petition is pending as a Company Petition No. 17 of 1999 and the matter has been remitted to the Hon ble Company Judge. After the petitioner company had filed an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that the order of the Hon ble Company Judge was ex parte, the matter was remitted in appeal. The pendency of the company petition is acknowledged in paragraph 35 of the writ petition. 13. In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate for this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to make any comments on the matter whether the petitioner is possessed of sufficient assests that it can take care of ail the liabilities which the Reserve Bank of India has pointed out in reference to the four factors mentioned in section 45 MC. 14. In so far as the four factors are concerned, should any of the circumstances exist then the presumption is that the company has reached a dangerous stage where other peoples moneys may be in jeopardy and a question would arise whether it would be just and equitable that such a non-banking financial company be wound up. But this is an aspect which is pending consideration before the Hon ble Company Judge and this court ought not to give its comments at this stage. The court is not inclined to interfere on this petition. 15. Dismissed.