https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378830 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the claim on the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) was valid despite the 1st respondent's argument of being time-barred. It was determined that the 1st respondent failed to comply with statutory requirements for unclaimed deposits and did not adequately communicate regarding the claim. The transfer of unclaimed funds to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) was deemed illegitimate due to discrepancies in details provided. The appellant was awarded the principal amount with interest and litigation costs, with the 1st respondent directed to make payments and ensure compliance within 30 days. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2019 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378830 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the claim on the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) was valid despite the 1st respondent's argument of being time-barred. It was determined that the 1st respondent failed to comply with statutory requirements for unclaimed deposits and did not adequately communicate regarding the claim. The transfer of unclaimed funds to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) was deemed illegitimate due to discrepancies in details provided. The appellant was awarded the principal amount with interest and litigation costs, with the 1st respondent directed to make payments and ensure compliance within 30 days. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378830