26108/2005.
By means of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner and others challenged the companystitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1997 for short the Tamil Nadu Act .
Hence, this appeal.
Non banking financial companypanies have duped thousands of innocent and gullible depositors of their hard earned money by promising high rates of interest on these deposits, and then done the moonlight flit, often disappearing into another State or even foreign companyntries leaving the depositors as well as the State police high and dry.
The object of the Tamil Nadu Act was to give a speedy remedy to the innocent depositors who were vulnerable to the temptation of earning high rates of interest and were victimized by the financial establishments fraudulently.
It has been referred to in Charles Dickens numberel Little Dorrit, in which Mr. Merdle sets up a Ponzi scheme resulting in loss of the savings of thousands of depositors including the Dorrits and Arthur Clennam.
In recent times there have been many such scandals e.g. the get rich quick scheme of the scamster Bernard Madoff in which the estimated losses of investors were estimated to be 21 billion dollars.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellant.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
Financial swindling and duping of gullible investors depositors is number unique to India.
By the impugned judgment the Full Bench of the Madras High Court has held the aforesaid Act to be companystitutional.
The Reserve Bank of India Act, the Banking Regulation Act and the Companies Act do number occupy the field which the impugned Tamil Nadu Act occupies, though the latter may incidentally trench upon the former.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Full Bench of the Madras dated 02.03.2007 in writ petition No.
The present case illustrates what has been going on in India for quite some time.
