TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Writ petition challenging bond redemption dismissed, IEPF transfer upheld. Companies Act sections valid.</h1> <h3>Nivedita Sharma Versus Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India</h3> Nivedita Sharma Versus Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India - [2012] 106 CLA 23 (DELHI), [2012] 113 SCL 48 (DELHI), [2012] 171 COMP. CAS. ... Issues Involved:1. Early Redemption of Bonds2. Notice for Early Redemption3. Transfer of Unclaimed Amounts to Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF)4. Constitutional Validity of Sections 205A and 205C of the Companies Act, 19565. Retrospective Application of Section 205CDetailed Analysis:1. Early Redemption of Bonds:The petitioner invested in ICICI Bonds, 1996, which had an option for premature redemption. The clause for early redemption specified dates and deemed face values for redemption. The petitioner sought redemption in 2009, but the respondent had already exercised the call option for early redemption in 2001. The court noted that the petitioner failed to submit the bonds for payment despite multiple reminders.2. Notice for Early Redemption:The respondent published notices in newspapers as required and sent reminder letters to bond-holders, including the petitioner, who had not surrendered their bonds. The court found no evidence that the petitioner informed the respondent of her change of address, and thus, the respondent's actions were deemed appropriate and compliant with the bond terms.3. Transfer of Unclaimed Amounts to Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF):The respondent transferred the unclaimed maturity proceeds to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under section 205C of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner challenged this transfer, arguing it adversely affected her rights. The court upheld the transfer, noting that the amount had remained unclaimed for over seven years, thus justifying its transfer to the IEPF.4. Constitutional Validity of Sections 205A and 205C of the Companies Act, 1956:The petitioner contended that sections 205A and 205C were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that challenges to the constitutional validity of a statute require specific pleadings, which were missing in this case. The court referenced previous judgments to underline the need for detailed and specific grounds when assailing the constitutional validity of a statute.5. Retrospective Application of Section 205C:The petitioner argued that section 205C should not apply retrospectively to bonds issued before its enactment. The court dismissed this argument, clarifying that the section was introduced with effect from 31st October 1998, and the call option was exercised in 2001, making the section applicable.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's failure to claim within the stipulated period and inform the respondent of her address change were significant lapses. The provisions of section 205C were upheld as constitutional, reasonable, and enacted in public interest. The court emphasized that laws of limitation are preventive, ensuring claims are made within a reasonable period, and do not violate fundamental rights.
TaxTMI 