https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398009 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 6 and 7 of the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules, 2016. It determined that the provisions do not violate Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, serve a legitimate public purpose, and are designed to protect the interests of genuine claimants. The court emphasized that the rules aim to prevent unjust enrichment by companies from unclaimed dividends, dismissing the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the provisions. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2020 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398009 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 6 and 7 of the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules, 2016. It determined that the provisions do not violate Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, serve a legitimate public purpose, and are designed to protect the interests of genuine claimants. The court emphasized that the rules aim to prevent unjust enrichment by companies from unclaimed dividends, dismissing the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the provisions. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398009