https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213660 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the early redemption of bonds and transfer of unclaimed amounts to the IEPF. The petitioner's failure to claim within the stipulated period and inform the respondent of her address change were key factors. The court upheld the constitutional validity of sections 205A and 205C of the Companies Act, emphasizing the need for specific grounds when challenging statutory validity. The retrospective application of section 205C was deemed valid, given the timeline of events. Laws of limitation were upheld as preventive measures in the public interest. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213660 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the early redemption of bonds and transfer of unclaimed amounts to the IEPF. The petitioner's failure to claim within the stipulated period and inform the respondent of her address change were key factors. The court upheld the constitutional validity of sections 205A and 205C of the Companies Act, emphasizing the need for specific grounds when challenging statutory validity. The retrospective application of section 205C was deemed valid, given the timeline of events. Laws of limitation were upheld as preventive measures in the public interest. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213660