Section 74: Repayment of deposits, etc., accepted before commencement of this Act

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 74

Section 74 of the Companies Act, 2013 establishes the mandatory transitional regime for deposits accepted by companies prior to the commencement of the Act, compelling statutory disclosure in Form DPT-4 and repayment within three years or the agreed tenure, subject only to extensions granted by the National Company Law Tribunal under strict financial criteria.

  • Mandatory Transitional Disclosure: Requires every company with deposits or interest unpaid at commencement (April 1, 2014) to file a comprehensive statement in Form DPT-4 with the Registrar of Companies within three months, detailing all moneys received and amounts remaining due.
  • Statutory Repayment Window: Mandates complete repayment within three years from commencement or before the expiry of the agreed deposit tenure, whichever is earlier, subject to the proviso that any renewal must strictly comply with the credit rating, deposit reserve, and circular requirements of Chapter V.
  • Tribunal's Discretionary Extension Jurisdiction: Empowers the NCLT under Section 74(2), upon application by the company, to grant further reasonable time for repayment after scrutinizing the company's financial condition, cash flows, viable revival plans, and depositor interests.
  • Severe Penal Sanctions for Default: Under Section 74(3), failure to repay within statutory or Tribunal-extended time attracts a minimum fine of one crore rupees extending to ten crore rupees on the company, alongside mandatory imprisonment up to seven years and fines up to two crore rupees for every officer in default.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • B. Sivaraman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 199 Comp Cas 175 (Mad): Upheld the constitutional validity and retrospective application of Section 74, holding that Parliament possesses plenary competence to enact stringent depositor protection mechanisms and that criminal proceedings under Section 74(3) attach immediately upon expiry of the repayment deadline without NCLT extension.
  • Dr. A.R. Biswas v. Registrar of Companies, 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 875: The NCLAT held that extensions under Section 74(2) cannot be granted as a matter of administrative routine; the company must establish genuine, insurmountable financial distress coupled with a concrete, time-bound repayment schedule demonstrating present ability to service depositors.
  • Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Jaypee Infratech Ltd., (2020) 8 SCC 401: The Supreme Court underscored the paramount priority of small retail depositors in corporate restructuring and insolvency, affirming that corporate debtors cannot evade statutory deposit repayment obligations through procedural delays.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When filing an extension application under Section 74(2) before the NCLT, annex audited balance sheets for the preceding three financial years, a certified cash-flow projection, and an escrow-backed staggered repayment roadmap. Pleading mere general economic slowdown without demonstrating ring-fenced asset realization will result in summary dismissal and trigger immediate RoC criminal prosecution under Section 74(3).