Central Information Commission
Ram Mohan Nag vs Registrar Of Companies, Delhi And ... on 7 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
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/ROCDH/A/2018/633329/01325
File no.: CIC/ROCDH/A/2018/633329
In the matter of:
Ram Mohan Nag
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Dy. Secretary
Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi and Haryana,
IFCI Tower, 4th Floor, 61- Nehru Palace, New Delhi - 110 019
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2018 CPIO replied on : 02/07/2018 First appeal filed on : 22/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 18/09/2018 Second Appeal dated : 11/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 06/08/2019 Date of Decision : 06/08/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Ms. Sweety Khattar, Assistant Registrar of Companies cum CPIO Information Sought:
The appellant has sought following information in respect of the grievances no. DCOYA/E/2018/00334 dated 05/03/2018 and DCOYA/E/2018/00913 filed before Dy. Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Jaipur, regarding use of fake signatures on documents and forgery documents by Dr. Satya Narayan Chandak and others to ROC:
1. Dr. Satya Narayan Chandak and others were allotted shares of Sheal Biotech Ltd., and group company in the name during his service period from 2012 to 1 2017. What amount had been paid by the appellant for allotment of 72000 shares (25000 shares and 47000 shares)? What amount was credited to the transferor by the appellant at the time of initial allotment of 72000 shares?
How shares were allotted to the appellant with SH 4 form SHARE TRANSFER FORM at the initial period? Copy of the SH 4 share transfer form is required to clarify this case for initial allotment of shares by Dr. Satya Narayan Chandak and others.
2. Dr. Satya Narayan Chandak and others have transferred 47000 shares to Mr. Sumeet Chandak, without the appellant's consent. As per share transfer rules "Transferor should give a notice in writing for his intention to transfer his shares to the company". The appellant was never given notice for transfer of his shares, provide copy of the same.
3. 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 has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case despite duly served notice on 20.07.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED525677167IN. He was contacted over phone and his wife informed that he is not well so the case may be decided on merits.
The CPIO submitted that they are only the custodian of documents and an appropriate reply was given to the appellant.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that an appropriate reply was given by the CPIO. Though the RTI application is related to redressal of his grievance the CPIO has appropriately dealt with the RTI application by forwarding it to the concerned public authority.
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to 2 File no.: CIC/ROCDH/A/2018/633329 plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 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