Background :
We understand that, in the month February 2014 Helios & Matherson Information Tech Ltd (“Helios”), had accepted deposits from various depositors in terms of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Deposit”). Against the said Deposit, Helios issued post dated cheques (“PDC’s”) to Depositors towards quarterly payment of interest. However, these post dated cheques for the quarter ended July 2014, September 2014 and December 2014 were dishonored by the banks of Helios, due to insufficiency of balance in the account. “Helios and its Officers in charge” (including Promoters, directors and key managerial persons) are in default, and are legally answerable and liable for punishment and pay compensation to the deposit holders.

In light of this background and prevalent legal scenario we are sharing legal remedies available with depositors :
I. Against “Helios and its Officers in charge” : –

Civil remedy before Company Law Board (It takes 3 months for order of CLB)
1. Payment for damages to the deposit holders, on account of default and financial/mental/physical agony/ legal cost;
2. Prompt payment of Interests on the deposits and principle amount;
3. Monetary penalty of twice the amount collected through fixed deposits;
4. To move court seeking the winding up of the Helios and distribution of assets of Helios amongst the deposit holders;
5. be punishable with fine which shall not be less than one crore rupees but which may extend to ten crore rupees;
6. Officers in charge of Helios may be held liable for a 7 year imprisonment.

Consumer Protection Act
The other alternative is to file a consumer complaint before the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This can be done in view of the judgement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the case of Neela Vasant Raje v/s Amogh Industries & Anr [X-1993 (3) CPR 343] wherein it has been held that a fixed deposit holder is a consumer entitled to file a complaint under the CP Act and entitled for compensation delay in .

Criminal remedy
1. Action for cheque bounce under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act;
2. Action for fraud

II. Against CRISIL (credit rating agency for deposits of Helios)
i. before SEBI cancellation/termination of CRISIL’s credit rating license since in violation of providing appropriate ratings, so as to mislead the deposit holders ;
ii. before consumer court for seeking compensation for deficiency in service by CRISIL in providing correct information and in timely manners;

OUR OPINION:
If objective of Depositors is solely to recover their money i.e. Interest on deposit amounts as agreed and payment of deposit amount along with damages with interest for the delayed period @ 15 %, it is advisable to go behind Helios and its officers before Company Law Board. There are similar precedents like Zenith Birla (India) Ltd, Birla Power Solutions, Ankur Drugs and Pharma, Nagarjuna fertilizers etc. wherein deposit holders got back their due amount within 3 months from CLB .

Further it shall always remain open to the deposit holders for criminal action against the Helios and its Officers in Charge AND against CRISIL, however which may incur huge legal cost in comparison to the end result.

Regards,
Supreme Waskar
Advocate Bombay High Court
09860 397591

i have the same problem with this company.
they have issued cheque and it got bounced , reason being no fund or stopped by helios and matheson.
the details are as follows. 1.TDR NO CDB048864 matured on 21st december 2014.
2 .TDR NO CDB052751 matured on 19th march 2015.
request your help.
G.Asokan.8754462466.