9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is proved on documents, provided no details to ROC Pune about the unclaimed deposits and the financial years to which it belongs and also is not able to satisfy us that the amount which has been deposited actually belongs to the appellants or other investors. By not intimating the details, 1st respondent has compelled the appellants to approach pillar to post to claim their hard earned money with interest. This is for this reasons that the public in large has lost faith to keep their deposits with the companies. In this case also, one of appellants expired in 1998 claiming his FDR amount from 1st respondent since 1992. This is all proved on documents. T he 1st respondent has deposited the amount with IEPF which was payable during the FY 31st March, 2004 whereas in the 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 - the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that they became due for payment have been transferred to Investor Education and Protection Fund. 5. The appellant stated that the appellant then approached Investor Education Protection Fund on 20.5.2013 to claim the said amount, who directed the appellant to complaint to ROC, Pune. The appellant then approached the ROC, Pune vide its letter dated 2.9.2013, who in turn forwarded the said complaint to 1st respondent vide letter dated 22.10.2013 (Page 27) also stating that the reply dated 29.7.2013 sent by 1st respondent is not satisfactory. 1st respondent replied to ROC, Pune vide its letter dated 7.11.2013 (Page 70) intimated that the unclaimed amount has been deposited with the IEPF vide challan dated 21.4.2004. 6. The appellant stated that the ROC did not give any satisfactory reply, therefore, the appellant filed a complaint before the Company Law Board, Mumbai on 9.9.2013 (Page 30-31). On coming into existence NCLT, the complaint was transferred to NCLT, Mumbai. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of the maturity amount of the FDR and also made various visits to the office of 1st respondent but no amount has been received back so far. 14. Reply on behalf of 1st respondent has been filed. 1st respondent stated that the claim of the appellant is extremely belated and is hopelessly time barred. 1st respondent stated that the father of the appellant made a deposit with it and the same was renewed from time to time and was lastly renewed on 27.8.1991 for a cumulative time period of 3 years maturing in 1994. 1st respondent stated that no communication was received from the father of the appellant or appellant till the year 2013. 2nd respondent further submitted that as per Section 205 C of the Companies Act, 1956 all matured deposits with the companies which are unclaimed for a period of 7 years shall be deposited with the Investor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant 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 (Page 39) and 25.1.1995 (Page 38) are written by late Sh Shriniwas Dhoot, who has since expired on 30.11.1998. In both these letters late Shri Shriniwas Dhoot has given the reference of 1st respondent letter No.AC/CTD/012948 dated 31.7.1992. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has not replied whether these letters have been received by them and also the letter No.AC/CTD/012948 dated 31.7.1992 has not been issued by them. The appellants have annexed the postal department receipt and courier receipt this effect. These two letters were also filed before the NCLT but there are no findings on these letters in the impugned order. Therefore, we observe that the appellants have sufficiently approached the 1st respondent about his FDR in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 earlier. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that on receipt of letter dated 20.3.2013 from 1st respondent, the appellants made enquiries on IEPF web portal but the appellants have been unable to trace any details of his FDR. Learned counsel for the appellants attached a screenshots of queries and the results which mentioned No Records Found (page 57). Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the 1st respondent has only intimated the total amount which has been deposited by 1st respondent with IEPF but no details thereof were intimated about the amount of appellant. 25. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the unclaimed fixed deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 156335/- from 27.8.1988 to 31.10.2018 and the total amount (principal +interest) comes to ₹ 12,407,355/-. The appellant argued that the interest has been calculated on half yearly basis. The appellant has also claimed ₹ 250000/- as litigation expenses. 28. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the appellants are not entitled to any amount as they have already deposited the amount with the IEPF and it is now for the appellant to approach IEPF. 29. On hearing the parties, we asked the counsel for 1st respondent to show how much amount of appellant has been transferred to IEPF as no details have been filed by them and ROC, Pune has also confirmed that no details, in respect of whom the amount, alongwith financial years, has been deposited by 1st respondent with IE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 names of the depositors to whom the amount belongs, IEPF and ROC, Pune are unable to process the claim, if any lodged with them. We are satisfied that 1st respondent has not able to satisfy us that unclaimed amount of appellant has been deposited with the IEPF. We would have appreciated that before transferring any unclaimed amount to IEPF, 1st respondent as good governance would have sent a notice to the appellants before transferring any amount to IEPF. We are satisfied that 1st respondent has not complied with statutory c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh 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 ntoed that previous correspondences on records are not from Jaipur address. This is only possible if there is correspondence between the parties over a period of time, including from new address of the appellant. Therefore, 1st respondent cannot deny that he has not received the earlier letters of the appellant. It establishes that the 1st respondent is giving contradictory statements and suppressing some information. 34. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
