Veena Kapoor vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 13 August, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Veena Kapoor vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 13 August, 2019

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सच  ु ना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                             Decision no.: CIC/MOCAF/A/2018/614344/01338
                                         File no.: CIC/MOCAF/A/2018/614344

In the matter of:
Veena Kapoor
                                                               ... Appellant
                                      VS
Sr. Account Officer & CPIO
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001
             &
Central Public Information Officer
Investor Education & Protection Fund Authority (IEPF)
Jeevan Vihar Building, Ground Floor,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001
                                                              ... Respondent

RTI application filed on : 04/12/2017 CPIO replied on : 02/01/2018 First appeal filed on : 16/01/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 16/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 08/08/2019 Date of Decision : 08/08/2019 The following were present:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Dinesh Kumar Dixit, DGM &CPIO, IEPF, present in person. Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information regarding his emails/letter sent to MEA/CLB regarding non payment of maturity amount by M/S Unitech Limited:

1. Name and Designation of officer who was supposed to act on her grievance and not done so.

2. Name and Designation of officer who declared the amount as unclaimed inspite of the fact that company has address of the appellant and company is supposed to send cheques on maturity. In correspondence with MCA/CLB, appellant gave her address.

3. Copy of letter by which the cheques were sent and received back as undelivered.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant was not present despite service of valid hearing notice on 25.07.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED048535659IN.

The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 02.01.2018.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO dated 02.01.2018 is proper as it was submitted during the hearing that the amount of refund claimed by the appellant has not been transferred by the company to the IEPF and they had accordingly requested the appellant to contact the concerned company for her dues. These amounts would become due to IEPF only in the financial year 2022-23 i.e. after 7 years from the date on which the company is to settle the dues. The appellant needs to claim these amounts from the company itself and not from IEPF at this stage.

Decision:

Based on the above observations, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and finds no scope for further intervention in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 2 File no.: CIC/MOCAF/A/2018/614344 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission