ORDER : [Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,] Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorari calling for the records of the National Company Law Tribunal, Single Bench, Chennai in MA/697/2018 in CP/381/IB/2018 and quash the order dated 19.03.2019. (1) It is not in dispute that M/s.Thiripura Chits Private Company, a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, had collected deposits from various persons in the State of Tamil Nadu and State of Karnataka and failed to repay the same. On account of the default of the Company, proceedings have been initiated against the Company under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors [in Financial Establishments] Act, 1997 [hereinafter referred to as ''the TNPID Act'']. However, one of the depositors also filed a petition under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [in short ''IB Code''] before the National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT], Chennai Bench, for initiation of Resolution process. (2) Neither the Company nor the promoters appeared to have entered appearance before NCLT. However, NCLT, Chennai, vide order dated 17.09.2018 appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional and gave certain directions. The Insolvency Resolution Professional preferred an application in MA.No.697/2018 under Sections 19[2] and 60[5] of the IB Code for issuing direction to the writ petitioner herein to provide Books of Accounts, records and latest list of payables and receivables of the Corporate Debtors seized by them to the applicant immediately in order to enable the applicant to carry out the duties in accordance with the IB Code, 2016. (3) Though notice was sent to the writ petitioner and the Investigating Officer appeared before NCLT, Chennai Bench, the Tribunal passed an order directing the writ petitioner to hand over all the records to the Corporate Debtors including Books of Accounts along with the Chit Security Deposits holding that the IB Code override the provisions of TNPID Act. It is to be noted that the attachment made vide G.O.Ms.No.73, Home [Police] Department dated 31.01.2019 was set aside and was declared null and void. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is to be noted that the attachment made vide G.O.Ms.No.73, Home [Police] Department dated 31.01.2019 was set aside and was declared null and void. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. (4) The core issue that arise for consideration before this Court is whether the provisions of IB Code, 2016, override the provisions of TNPID Act and whether the proceedings initiated under TNPID Act, cannot go on in view of the provisions of the IB Code and whether NCLT can declare the attachment made under the provisions of TNPID Act as null and void. (5) The TNPID Act is a special enactment which is intended to protect the rights of depositors and provide a mechanism for the disbursement of the assets of the accused apart from punishing the accused. The NCLT, Chennai Bench, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank and Another [2018 [1] SCC 407] for the proposition that the provisions of the IB Code shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, particularly referring to Section 238 of the IB Code, 2016. Similarly, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in PR.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited [SLP.No 6483/2018 dated 10.12.2018] is also relied upon by NCLT for the same proposition. However, the Tribunal has not discussed the facts of the cases in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed their views. The Tribunal further relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of M/s.Aryarup Tourism Club Resorts Private Limited in Company Petition No.278/2014. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal has not given the date of the judgments or the journal in which the judgments relied upon, are reported. (6) A Full Bench of this Court in S.Bagavathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by it Secretary, Law Department, Chennai and Others reported in 2007 [2] CTC 207 considered the constitutional validity of TNPID Act, elaborately. One of the issues raised before the Full Bench was regarding the legislative competence of the State to promulgate the law. (6) A Full Bench of this Court in S.Bagavathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by it Secretary, Law Department, Chennai and Others reported in 2007 [2] CTC 207 considered the constitutional validity of TNPID Act, elaborately. One of the issues raised before the Full Bench was regarding the legislative competence of the State to promulgate the law. Taking note of the primary object of the State legislation, the Full Bench held that the enactment is meant for public safety and to protect the interest of public and applied Doctrine of parens patriae by reminding sovereign power and duty of the State to shoulder responsibilities in public interest. Referring to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterating several principles of law, the Full Bench held that the State legislature cannot be held to be unconstitutional particularly because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature. It is also reiterated that the Courts should be guided by Doctrine of pith and substance and consider which constitute in pith and substance the true subject matter of legislation to find out whether the subject matter of the State legislature encroaches the field of Union Government. For the principles reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court, when we examine the provisions of the TNPID Act as a whole, its object and the scope and the power and jurisdiction conferred under the Special Court, this Court is convinced that the provisions of TNPID Act should stand, despite provisions of IB Code. Therefore, the Full Bench of this Court considered the issue whether the TNPID Act is ultra vires the constitution since the provisions of the Act are repugnant to the existing provisions of RBI Act, 1934 read with Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Companies Act. Therefore, the Full Bench of this Court considered the issue whether the TNPID Act is ultra vires the constitution since the provisions of the Act are repugnant to the existing provisions of RBI Act, 1934 read with Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Companies Act. Since the object of TNPID Act is not the same as that of Section 58-A of the Companies Act or Section 45-S of RBI Act, 1934, the Full Bench has summed up in paragraph No.149[i] as follows:- ''149.1.To sum up:- a. the field of legislation, viz., Tamil Nadu Act, is traceable to Entries 1 and 32 of List II, besides falling under Entries 1, 7 and 8 in the Concurrent List, which as already observed needs no deliberation; b. the impugned Tamil Nadu Act does not fall within the legislative field of the Union List (List-I); and c. though there is trenching, the same is only incidental, which is permissible in law.'' (7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Baskaran Vs. State represented by its Secretary, Tamil Nadu and Others [2011 [2] SCC 793], considered whether TNPID Act is beyond the legislative competency of State legislature as it falls within Entries 43, 44 and 45 of List I of VII Schedule of Constitution. It was argued before Hon'ble Supreme Court that TNPID Act is liable to be struck down as the field of legislation is already occupied by legislation of Parliament being RBI Act, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Companies Act, 1956 and the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act, 1944. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed with the judgment of Bombay High Court with reference to Maharashtra Act and the subject matter covered by the Maharashtra Act does not fall within the subject matter of Sections 58-A and 58-AA of Companies Act. While holding that Courts should look at the legislation as a whole and there is a presumption that the legislature does not exceed its constitutional limits, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the view that incidental trenching in exercise of ancillary powers into a forbidden legislative territory is permissible if a legislation is in substance one on a matter assigned to legislature then it must be held to be valid even though it incidentally trenches on matters beyond its legislative competence. (8) The collection of deposit, ignoring the contractual obligation of the person collecting such deposits is now made liable for a criminal offence which enable the Special Court to punish him with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend upto Rs.1 lakh. (9) Therefore, the purpose and object of TNPID Act, which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court despite its marginal encroachment into the Central legislations, cannot be ignored. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order of NCLT is contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, this Court agrees with the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General reiterating the legal grounds raised in this writ petition. (10) As a result, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order of NCLT dated 19.03.2019 in MA/697/2018 in CP/381/IB/2018 is quashed. (11) While disposing of the matter, we are inclined to share our thoughts in the implementation of the provisions of TNPID Act. This Court finds that the Special Court dealing with cases registered under TNPID Act, are forced to think that in each case, hundreds of depositors should be examined to prove their case. Because of this, the matters are pending in Special Courts dealing with TNPID cases without substantial progress and it takes a minimum of 5 to 10 years to give a verdict and many of the people who commit offences under TNPID Act are able to get away with the fortune despite pendency of a criminal case under TNPID Act. (12) It is pertinent to mention that under Section 45-S of RBI Act, 1934, collection of deposit itself is an offence if such a collection is by anyone who is not a Bank or Financial Institution or Non-Banking Financial Institution who are permitted to collect deposits under different statutes. Under Section 6 of TNPID Act, the Special Court while trying any case, may also try any offence other than the offence specified in Section 5 of the Act at the same trial. Therefore, even an offence under Section 45-S of RBI Act or Section 420 of IPC etc., can be tried by the Special Court. Under Section 6 of TNPID Act, the Special Court while trying any case, may also try any offence other than the offence specified in Section 5 of the Act at the same trial. Therefore, even an offence under Section 45-S of RBI Act or Section 420 of IPC etc., can be tried by the Special Court. Since Section 45-S of RBI Act contemplates punishment for collection of deposits, the Police Department can register cases even when deposits are collected by persons who are not authorised under the RBI Act, 1934. This is possible by following the procedure contemplated under the RBI Act, 1934 for getting a complaint from the competent person. (13) The State Government is directed to file a Report as to the action proposed as per the direction of this Court in this judgment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order if necessary after getting legal opinion as to the scope of Section 45-S of RBI Act to initiate action even if anyone is found to receive deposit under any scheme in violation of RBI Act. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (14) Post after six weeks for filing of Report.