Issue of duplicate shares under IEPF Rules. Procedure of transmission of shares to be followed and duplicate shares need not be issued. MCA Clarification
General Circular No. 7/2017
F. No. 05/23/2016-IEPF
Government of India
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
To,
All Stakeholders, .
Nodal Officer’s (IEPF) of Concerned Companies
All Regional Director’s & Registrar of Companies of Min of Corp. Affairs
5th Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. R. P. Road, New Delhi
Dated: 05th June, 2017
Subject: Clarification regarding transmission of Securities by Operation of Law – Reg.
Sir/Madam,
Clarity has been sought by stakeholders w.r.t. issue of duplicate shares under Rule 6 (3)(d) of the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules, 2016. It has been stated that since transfer of shares to IEPF under section 124 (6) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with rules referred to above takes place on account of operation of law hence the procedure followed during transmission of shares may be followed in such cases and duplicate shares need not be issued in such cases . The suggestion made by the stakeholders has been examined in the Ministry and it is clarified that the procedure similar to what is followed in case of transmission of shares may be followed by companies while transferring shares to IEPF Authority pursuant to section 124 (6) read with applicable rules.
2. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
Yours faithfully,
(Monika Gupta)
Deputy Director
Copy to:
(1) CEO, IEPF Authority
(2) Sr. AO, IEPF Authority
(3) E-Governance Cell/MCA and to place this circular on Ministry’s Authority website and for necessary coordination with M/ s Infosys Ltd.
(4) Guard File.
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…