1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 1/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT 1. Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.388/2005 2. Laxman Vs. Chunni Lal S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.387/2005 Date of Judgment : 24th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Rajesh Shah for the petitioner. None present for the respondent. --------- BY THE COURT:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondent despite service. 2. These two revision petitions have been filed by the defendant Laxman Singh being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the courts below in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the defendant had started an scheme known as V.C. in a group of traders situated at Sirohi on 10.9.1993 and under the said scheme, 20 members for 20 years agreed to deposit Rs.2500/- per month and accordingly on the sum collected from such 20 members, the members who agreed to give the maximum interest used to take away 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 2/9 the sum so collected. Under the said scheme of V.C. upon completion of period of 20 months, the members, who regularly deposited the said installments of Rs.2500/- per month was to be paid back the entire sum of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. The plaintiff Chunni Lal claimed that he deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- for 12 months under the said scheme and thereafter he could not deposit the remaining amount as the defendant was not attending the fixed meetings of the said group and the defendant had closed the said scheme on 10.9.1994 itself after one year and, therefore, though the plaintiff waived his amount of interest, the plaintiff claimed the sum so deposited of Rs.30,000/- in the suit filed by him. The suit was decreed by both the courts below. Being aggrieved of the same, the defendant has approached this Court by way of present revision. 3. Mr. Rajesh Shah appeared for the defendant-petitioner whereas none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents despite service. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the said scheme floated by the defendant fell under the mischief of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and he urged that since the said scheme in question fell in the banned category of “money circulation scheme” as defined in Section 2(c) of 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 3/9 the said Act and in view of Section 3 of the said Act banning such Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant. This contention, however, did not find favour with the courts below. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors. - AIR 1987 SC 1023. 5. It would be appropriate to refer to the definition of “Prize Chits” and “Money Circulation Schemes” as defined in Section 2(c) and 2(e) of the said Act as also Section 3 of the Act of 1978:- “2. Definition.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -- (a) “conventional chit” means a transaction whether called chit, chit fund, kuri or by any other name by or under which a person responsible for the conduct of the chit enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money(or certain quantity of grain instead) by way of periodical instalments for a definite period and that each such subscriber shall, in his turn, as determined by lot or by auction or by tender or in such other manner as may be provided for in the chit agreement, be entitled to a prize amount. Explanation.- In this clause “prize amount” shall mean the amount, by whatever name called, arrived at by deducting from out of the total amount period or payable 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 4/9 at each instalment by all the subscribers, (i) the commission charged as service charges as a promoter or a forman or an agent; and (ii) any sum which a subscriber agrees to forego, from out of the total subscriptions of each instalment, in consideration of the balance being paid to him; (b)... (c) ... “money circulation scheme” means any scheme, by whatever name called, for the making of quick or easy money, or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a promise to pay money, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme, whether or not such money or things is derived from the entrance money of the members of such scheme or periodical subscription; (d) ... (e) “prize chit' includes any transaction or arrangement by whatever name called under which a person collects whether as a promoter foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump sum or in instalments by way of contributions or subscription or by sale of units, certificates or other instruments or in any other manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service charges to or in respect of any savings, mutual benefit, thrift, or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever name called, and utilises the monies so collected or any part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other use of such monies for all or any of the following purposes, namely:- 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 5/9 (i) giving or awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers as determined by lot, draw or in any other manner, prizes or gifts in cash or in kind, whether or not the recipient of the prize of gift is under a liability to make any further payment in respect of such Scheme or arrangement; (ii) refunding to the subscribers or such of them as have not won any prize or gift, the whole or part of the subscriptions, contributions or other monies collected, with or without any bonus, premium, interest or other advantage by whatever name called, on the termination of the scheme or arrangement, or on or after the expiry of the period stipulated therein, but does not include a conventional chit; 3. Banning of prize chits and money circulation schemes or enrolment as members or participation therein.- No person shall promote or conduct any prize chit or money circulation scheme, or enrol as a member to any such chit or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or receive or remit any money in pursuance of such chit or scheme.” 6. The Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Peerless General Finance Company's case (supra) discussing in detail the provisions of the said Act and even the recommendations of Bhabatosh Datta Study Group and the Raj Study Group's report and recommendations held in para 30 and 32 of the said judgment as 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 6/9 under:- “30. So, the Court was of the view that the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act was designed to fight the baser human instinct of gambling aroused by the prize element involved in the banned transactions. The court concluded that it was the prize element that brought it within the mischief of the Act and that without the price element it would be no different from a Conventional Chit, considered harmless by the Parliament. We must notice here that in a 'Conventional Chit' as defined in the Act, though every subscriber is entitled to the prize amount, some get it sooner than the others depending on the result of the auction or the draw and to the extent that ;it depends on a draw there is a slight element of chance. In the Recurring Deposit Schemes such as the ones we are concerned with, even that element of chance is lacking. If 'Conventional Chits' are not banned, it is a legitimate question to ask whether Parliament could have contemplated the banning of schemes not involving the element of the kind of harm intended to be prevented, even to the slight degree as in Conventional Chits? 31. ...... 32. We do not think it necessary to launch into a discussion of either Dilworth's case or any of the other case cited. All that is necessary for us to say is this : legislatures resort to inclusive definition 1) to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases so as to 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 7/9 take in the ordinary, popular and natural sense of the words and also the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it, 2) to include meanings about which there might be some dispute, or 3) to bring under one nomenclature all transactions possessing certain similar features but going under different names. Depending on the context, in the process of enlarging, the definition may even become exhaustive. We do not think that by using the word 'includes', in the definition in S.2(a) of the Act, the Parliament intended to so expand the meaning of prize chit as to take in every scheme involving subscribing and refunding of money. The word 'includes', the contest shows , was intended not to expand the meaning of 'prize chit' but to cover all transactions or arrangements of the nature of prize chits but under different names. The expression 'Prize Chit' had nowhere been statutorily defined before. The Bhabatosh Datta Study Group and the Raj Study Group had identified the scheme popularly called 'Prize Chits'. The Study groups also recognised that 'Prize Chits' were also variously called benefit / savings scheme and lucky draws and that the basic common features of the schemes were the giving of a prize and the ultimate refund of the amount of subscriptions (Vide Para 6.3 of the report of the Raj Study Group). It was recommended that prize chits and the like by whatever name called should be banned. Since prize chits were called differently, 'prize chits', 'benefit/savings schemes', 'lucky draws', etc. it became necessary for the 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 8/9 Parliament to resort to an inclusive definition so as to bring in all transactions or arrangements containing these two elements. We do not think that in defining the expression 'Prize Chit', the Parliament intended to depart from the meaning which the expression had come to acquire in the world of finance, the meaning which the Datta and the Raj Study Groups had given it. That this is the only permissible interpretation will also be further evident from the text Chit and the context as we shall presently see.” 7. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that chits floated by Peerless Company was outside the scheme of the said banning Act, 1978, however, the scheme of the defendant in the present case appears to be covered by the definition of “money circulation scheme” as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act. The element of chance in this scheme is not ruled out and in view of the fact that money collected from the said group stood distributed by the defendant, nothing as a matter of fact remains due to be paid by the defendant. Admittedly the plaintiff did not himself complete the term of the said agreement as he paid only 12 installments against 20 upto 10.9.1994. In other words, he deposited only a sum of Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- as envisaged by the V.C. Scheme. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said scheme fell within the mischief of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1978 defining “money circulation scheme” read with banning provisions contained in Section 3 of the 1. CR 388/05 - Laxman Vs. Tejpal Singh 2. CR 387/05- Laxman Vs.Chunni Lal Judgment dt.24.9.09 9/9 said Act. This renders the entire transaction illegal and hit by the public policy and, therefore, the contract is unenforceable in law. 8. Consequently the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and the impugned judgment and decree, therefore deserves to be set aside. 9. Consequently, these revision petitions are allowed and setting aside the impugned judgments and decree, the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.1 & 2 babulal/-