Earlier on September 23, Justice Anil Dev Singh had directed the company to file a list of its properties and provide details of matured deposits within three weeks.

In his ruling today, Justice C M Nayar also directed the company to file the list of properties and matured deposits along with an affidavit before the next date of hearing on May 3.

The court order came on petition filed by Rockland challenging a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular which prohibited the company from accepting any deposit.

Rockland, in its petition, claimed that the company was registered with Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a merchant banker and RBI order dated June 9, 1998 was without jurisdiction.

RBI, in its reply, submitted that Rockland had been prohibited from accepting deposits undersection 45-K of the RBI Act and the order in question was fully within powers of the bank and had been issued in the public interest.

RBI further contended that the impugned order does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and the main business of the company would not be hampered if the order was not stayed.

Rockland's petition claimed that from January 8, 1998, the company stopped fund-based operations as an NBFC (Non-Banking Financing Corporation) thus ceased to be as such with effect from the said date.

RBI alleged that Rockland failed to maintain the minimum percentage of liquid assets and produce government securities for physical verification.

"It failed to obtain minimum credit rating by any credit rating agency and defaulted in payment of the matured deposits and periodical interest to the depositors," RBI submitted.

The bank further alleged that a chartered accountant was appointed by the RBI to conduct special audit of the company which was not allowed by Rockland under one or theother pretext.

RBI submitted that if the order in question was stayed, it would jeopardize the interest of depositors and prove detrimental.

Rockland contended that since January 8, 1998, the company had been carrying out the business of a category-I merchant banker such as issue management, investment advice, underwriting of issues and portfolio management etc.

"It has been carrying out the activity solely of merchant banker since January 8, 1998 and therefore section 45 1a does not apply to the petitioner," the company claimed.

It further submitted that an RBI circular dated February 2, 1998 had exempted merchant bankers from provisions of the RBI act particularly section 45 1a relating to compulsory registration, maintenance of liquid assets and all provisions of deposit and prudential norms.