Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1274 - AT - Companies LawRefund of maturity amount of FDR - Case of respondent was that the amount which was unclaimed and unpaid for a period of 7 years from the dates that they became due for payment have been transferred to Investor Education and Protection Fund - HELD THAT:- The appellants have sufficiently approached the 1st respondent about his FDR in the year 1992, 1995 and 2000. The FDR was lastly renewed on 27.8.1991 as admitted by the 1st respondent himself. 1st respondent has wrongly intimated the appellant vide letter dated 20.3.2013 (Page 49) that the FDR was matured for payment on 7.10.1988. We have already observed in para No.21, that the appellants were approaching the 1st respondent for payment of FDR since 1992 to 2000 and the 1st respondent should have refunded the FDR matured amount to the appellants when they had claimed earlier. The 1st respondent has not complied with statutory compliances in law and spirit, has given contradictory statements, which is proved on documents, provided no details to ROC Pune about the unclaimed deposits and the financial years to which it belongs and also is not able to satisfy us that the amount which has been deposited actually belongs to the appellants or other investors. By not intimating the details, 1st respondent has compelled the appellants to approach pillar to post to claim their hard earned money with interest. This is for this reasons that the public in large has lost faith to keep their deposits with the companies. In this case also, one of appellants expired in 1998 claiming his FDR amount from 1st respondent since 1992. This is all proved on documents. T he 1st respondent has deposited the amount with IEPF which was payable during the FY 31st March, 2004 whereas in the case of appellant it was payable during FY 2001-2002. On analysis of this document we observe that the 1st respondent has deposited the amount of other depositors whose deposit was due for transfer in the FY 31st March, 2004. Therefore. 1st respondent is unable to convince us that the amount of appellant has been deposited with the IEPF. There is a maxim in law that a man can lie but a document cannot - there is not enough proof that company had discharged its obligation with reference to this FDR while depositing with IEPF. The conclusion drawn by NCLT are not acceptable - In the interest of justice to the appellant who has been approaching 1st respondent for more than two decades, we direct 1st respondent to make payment to the appellant.
|