TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the year, 1996. The petitioner also applied for these bonds and was allocated five ICICI bonds 1996 on 15.7.1996 for Rs. 5200 each being the face value of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and with surrender date of 15.7.2021. Though the validity period of bonds was of 25 years, within five years of issuance of these bonds, ICICI issued public notice on 12.1.2001 in leading newspaper in Delhi exercising its earlier redemption option for 15.7.2001. This was in line with Clause 4 of the bond certificates, which is to the following effect: "(4) Procedure for Early Redemption by the Company In case the company decides for an Early Redemption of Bonds, it will announce its intention to do so at least six months prior to the relevant date by giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....998. Circular was issued by the Department of Company Affairs, now under the respondent No.1, which stated that all amounts which have remained unpaid/unclaimed for a period of seven years from the date of their transfer to the „unpaid dividend account‟ are required to be transferred to IEPF fund by 31.10.2001. 5. As per the aforesaid provision and Circular, ICICI transferred unclaimed principal amount to the IEPF vide redemption payment of ICICI Bonds 1996 vide Ministry of Corporate Affairs Challan. 6. It is only on 02.3.2009, the petitioner for the first time wrote to the respondent No.2 for the redemption of the bonds. She was given reply dated 09.3.2009 vide which she was informed the petitioner that as she had not cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unconstitutional or they violate Article 14 or any other provisions of the Constitution. It cannot be said that the aforesaid provisions are faulty and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. 9. To strike down Section 205 C will amount to negating and striking down a worthy and meritorious legislation which is on the whole beneficial and advantageous and in public interest. The petitioner is aggrieved because she did not stake her claim for refund within seven years. She did not inform change of address and, therefore, could not be communicated and informed about the premature redemption. The petitioner also did not bother to read the terms and conditions of allotment including the early redemption clause. These are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers dated 02.1.2012 granting the liberty to challenge the amendment in the appropriate forum. The precise order passed in the said SLP reads as under: "Petitioner-in-person seeks to withdraw this Special Leave Petition with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum challenging the vires of the amendment incorporated in the Companies Act. Permission granted. Thus, Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn." 8. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed and the prayers in this writ petition are as under: "I. Declare that 205B and C along with the proviso/explanation respectively as ultra vires. II. Direct the respondent No.1 MCA render full and complete and complete accounts of amounts transferred to the Consolidated Fund ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igation, the petitioner had challenged the vires of these provisions on different grounds. This time, the validity of the provision challenged on the ground that the Parliament had no legislative power to enact/insert Section 205C of the Act which is expropriatory legislative power. It was argued that the power to legislate for acquisition of property is exercisable only under Entry 42 of List III of 7th Schedule of the Constitution and not as an inherent power to the Legislator relating to the Companies Act, viz., Entry 43 of List I. 11. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission of the petitioner and agree with the contention of the respondent that the petition is hit by res judicata/constructive res judicata. It is not in dispute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. In the case of Satyadhan Ghosal and Ors. Vs. Sm. Deorajin Debi & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 941, the Supreme Court held that when a matter whether on a question of fact or on a question of law has been decided between two parties in one proceeding and the decision is final either because no appeal was taken to a higher Court or because the appeal was dismissed, neither party will be allowed in a future proceedings between the same parties to canvas the matter again. This principle is clearly embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of CPC, but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res-judicata has been applied by Courts for the purpose of achieving fina....