9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 1 lakh in the 1st respondent vide FDR No.315346 for a period of three years, thereafter the same was renewed on 7.10.1982 vide receipt No.370660, and the same was again renewed on 7.10.1985, 7.10.1988 vide receipt No.71574. The appellant stated that the FDR was last renewed on 27.8.1991 for three years for Rs. 150000/- (Page 32 & 95) against a maturity value of more than Rs. 156335/- vide FDR No.71574 and the overdue and unpaid interest and a part of the principal was to be sent, but it was not received till date. 3. The appellant stated that he made several correspondences with the 1st respondent since December, 1992 seeking status/refund of the maturity amount of the said FDR. The appellant further stated that the correspondence continues till 2013. 4. The appellant stated that the appellant received a letter dated 20.3.2013 (Page 49) intimating that the FDR No.370660 for Rs. 1 lakh renewed for three years vide FDR No.71574 on 7.10.1985 matured for payment on 7.10.1988. However, the amount remains unclaimed by the appellant. The appellant stated that the 1st respondent intimated him that the amount which was unclaimed and unpaid for a period of 7 years from the dates th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not surrendered to Central Government. Moreover, the explanation u/s 205(c) has made it clear that no claims shall lie against the Investor Education and Protection Fund or the Company in respect of individual amount unpaid or unclaimed for period of 7 years from the dates that they first became due for payment and no payment shall be made in respect of such claims, therefore, this applicant is not entitled to seek the remedy after lapse of 7 years from the date of amount due for payment." 19. Therefore, this application is hereby dismissed without costs, with a clarification that this order will not become a bar to the applicant if he is otherwise entitled to make any claim for his deposit from the competent authorities." 10. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order the appellant has filed the present appeal. 11. The appellant has stated that the NCLT has passed the impugned order without taking into account the pleadings and documents filed before NCLT. 12. The appellant stated that the impugned order is in violation of Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956. 13. The appellant stated that he had made various communication to 1st respondent since 1992 seeking refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached vide letters 17.12.1992 (Page 39), 25th January, 1995 (Page 38) and 4th May, 2000 (Page41) to inform the status and also make the payment which is overdue. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the postal receipt and courier receipt in lieu of acknowledgement are at Page 40 and 43. Learned counsel further argued that no response was received and no payment was received. 19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent argued and admitted that fixed deposit was made by the appellants which was got renewed on different dates and was finally renewed on 27.8.1991 for a cumulative time period of three years. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent further argued that the said amount due to be claimed by the father of the appellant in year 1994, however, no communication of any sort was received by them from the appellants. 20. On hearing the arguments of both the counsel, we observe that the FDR was made by the appellants with the 1st respondent and the same was lastly renewed on 27.8.1991 for a cumulative time period of 3 years, maturing on 27.8.1994. Therefore, there is no dispute on this issue. We further observe that the letters dated 17.12.1992 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 5,61,180.01 vide Banker's Cheque No.247290 dated 21.4.2004 vide Challan No.80 dated 27.4.2004. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent further argued that no communication was received from the appellants claiming the amount. Learned counsel further argued that 1st respondent places reliance upon Section 205C of the Companies Act, 1956 and argued that no claim of any investor lies against the Fund or the company in case the amount has remained unclaimed. Learned counsel for 1st respondent further argued that the FDR of the appellants matured in 1994 and the same remained unclaimed and, therefore, the 1st respondent deposited the amount of the appellant in IEPF on 27.4.2004. 23. On hearing the parties we observe that the FDR was lastly renewed on 27.8.1991 as admitted by the 1st respondent himself. 1st respondent has wrongly intimated the appellant vide letter dated 20.3.2013 (Page 49) that the FDR was matured for payment on 7.10.1988. We have already observed in para No.21, that the appellants were approaching the 1st respondent for payment of FDR since 1992 to 2000 and the 1st respondent should have refunded the FDR matured amount to the appellants when they had claimed e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or can access to the status of his deposit. If the details in respect of whom the amount was deposited, would have been mentioned in the challan which was submitted with the concerned ROC Pune, then the same details would have been uploaded on the MCA website portal and every investor had conveniently viewed their amount on the said MCA website portal and then he can file the claim in E Form IEPF 5. In absence of any details, submitted by the 1st respondent to ROC Pune, no investor is able to file the claim. In this way the depositor may have lost the trail of their hard earned money by giving deposit to 1st respondent. Thus, even if the ROC Pune wants to help the appellant, he cannot help because no details has been provided by the 1st respondent. 27. During the course of hearing the appellant has filed an affidavit thereby annexing a chart of calculation showing the actual amount due as on date. The appellant has claimed interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs. 156335/- from 27.8.1988 to 31.10.2018 and the total amount (principal +interest) comes to Rs. 12,407,355/-. The appellant argued that the interest has been calculated on half yearly basis. The appellant has also claimed Rs. 250000/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed deposit was claimed to have been transferred to IEPF in 2004. But no detail was provided to the ROC Pune about the financial years to which the amounts relates and the amount was in whose name. ROC Pune have also confirmed that no details have been provided by the 1st Respondent about the deposit of unclaimed amount. Here we also observe that even the ROC Pune has not sought any clarification from 1st respondent about the details of the financial years and the details of the individuals to which this deposit belongs and silently accepted the unclaimed deposits. Even if we presume that the unclaimed amount of appellant was deposited with IEPF, then a doubt arises in our mind that the FDR matured on 1994 and as per Companies Act it was to be deposited with IEPF in 2001 or 2002, then why it was deposited in 2004 that too with no details of financial year and the name of the deposit holder/s to whom the amount belongs. If the details would have been provided by the 1st respondent, then 1st respondent had discharged its liability lawfully. In this way the appellants would have approached IEPF to seek the claim. As no details have been provided in respect of financial year and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of appellant it was payable during FY 2001-2002. On analysis of this document we observe that the 1st respondent has deposited the amount of other depositors whose deposit was due for transfer in the FY 31st March, 2004. Therefore. 1st respondent is unable to convince us that the amount of appellant has been deposited with the IEPF. There is a maxim in law that a man can lie but a document cannot. Therefore, we are satisfied that there is not enough proof that company had discharged its obligation with reference to this FDR while depositing with IEPF. 33. We further observe that the company has written letter dated 20.3.2013 (Page 49) to appellant at the Jaipur address. The said letter shows that the letter seems to have been written without any reference to a previous letter but it is mute point to consider why this letter has been written without any reference from the appellant. No such letter has been placed before that such exercise has been done from 1994 onwards without any reference being received from the appellant or other investors. We observe that when the letter dated 20.3.2013 (Page 49) has been written to the appellant at his Jaipur address. Further it is nt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
