Full News

Kerala High Court Orders IEPF to Decide Shareholder Claims Within 90 Days

A group of petitioners approached the Kerala High Court because their applications to reclaim shares and dividends from the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) had been pending for nearly two years. The court directed the IEPF Authority to process and decide these claims within 90 days, as per the legal timelines set out in the Companies Act, 2013 and related rules.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Sageer Rashid K.A & Others v. Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (IEPF), Ministry of Corporate Affairs (High Court of Kerala)

W.P.(C) No. 10247 of 2025.

Date: 8th April 2025

Key Takeaways

Timely Processing Required: The IEPF Authority must process refund claims within 60 days of receiving the company’s verification report, as per Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules.
Court Intervention: The High Court can direct authorities to act when statutory timelines are not followed.
No Decision on Merits: The court did not decide whether the petitioners’ claims were valid, only that they must be considered promptly.
Clear Legal Framework: The judgment reinforces the process under Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 7 of the IEPF Rules.

Issue

Did the IEPF Authority fail to process the petitioners’ claims for refund of shares and dividends within the legally mandated time, and should the court direct the authority to act expeditiously?

Facts

Who: 53 petitioners, all individuals whose shares and unclaimed dividends in various listed companies were transferred to the IEPF.
What: Their shares/dividends were moved to the IEPF after being unclaimed for seven years, as per Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Why: The petitioners filed claims to recover their shares/dividends, but the IEPF Authority had not processed these claims for almost two years.
How: The petitioners provided status reports from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website showing their applications were neither approved nor under process.

Arguments

Petitioners

The IEPF Authority has not acted on their claims for nearly two years, despite clear legal timelines.
Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules requires the Authority to dispose of refund claims within 60 days of receiving the company’s verification report.
The inaction is causing undue hardship and is contrary to law.

Respondent (IEPF Authority)

Represented by Senior Panel Counsel.
The judgment does not detail their arguments, but the implication is that the Authority had not processed the claims within the stipulated time.

Key Legal Precedents & Provisions

Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013: Governs transfer of unclaimed shares/dividends to the IEPF and the right of claimants to reclaim them.
Rule 7(3) of the IEPF Rules: The company must send an offline verification report to the IEPF Authority within 30 days of receiving a claim in Form IEPF-5.
Rule 7(4) of the IEPF Rules: The Authority must order the refund after receiving the verification report, crediting the amount to the claimant’s DEMAT account.
Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules: The Authority must dispose of refund claims within 60 days of receiving the verification report.

No specific case law names are cited in the judgment; only statutory provisions and rules are referenced.

Judgement

Decision: The High Court directed the IEPF Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioners’ claims in accordance with law, within 90 days from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment.
Reasoning: The court noted the applications had been pending for nearly two years, far exceeding the 60-day period mandated by Rule 7(6). The court did not comment on the merits of the claims, only on the delay.
Order: The writ petition was disposed of with the above direction.

FAQs

Q1: What is the IEPF?

A: The Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) is a government fund where unclaimed dividends and shares are transferred after seven years. Claimants can apply to reclaim their shares/dividends.

Q2: Why did the petitioners go to court?

A: Their applications to reclaim shares/dividends from the IEPF were pending for almost two years, despite legal rules requiring a much faster process.

Q3: What did the court decide?

A: The court ordered the IEPF Authority to process and decide the claims within 90 days.

Q4: Did the court say the petitioners should get their shares/dividends back?

A: No, the court only ordered that their claims be considered promptly. It did not decide on the merits of the claims.

Q5: What law governs this process?

A: Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 7 of the IEPF Rules.

Q6: What happens if the IEPF Authority doesn’t act in 90 days?

A: The judgment doesn’t specify consequences, but failure to comply could lead to further legal action or contempt proceedings.

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

Kerala High Court Orders IEPF to Decide Shareholder Claims Within 90 Days

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/CA-HC-Kerala-10247-2025.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/CA-HC-Kerala-10247-2025.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>Sageer Rashid K.A &amp; Others v. Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (IEPF), Ministry of Corporate Affairs (High Court of Kerala)W.P.(C) No. 10247 of 2025.Date: 8th April 2025<h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Timely Processing Required:&nbsp;The IEPF Authority must process refund claims within 60 days of receiving the company’s verification report, as per Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules.</li><li>Court Intervention:&nbsp;The High Court can direct authorities to act when statutory timelines are not followed.</li><li>No Decision on Merits:&nbsp;The court did not decide whether the petitioners’ claims were valid, only that they must be considered promptly.</li><li>Clear Legal Framework:&nbsp;The judgment reinforces the process under Section 124(5) &amp; (6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 7 of the IEPF Rules.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Did the IEPF Authority fail to process the petitioners’ claims for refund of shares and dividends within the legally mandated time, and should the court direct the authority to act expeditiously?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Who:&nbsp;53 petitioners, all individuals whose shares and unclaimed dividends in various listed companies were transferred to the IEPF.</li><li>What:&nbsp;Their shares/dividends were moved to the IEPF after being unclaimed for seven years, as per Section 124(5) &amp; (6) of the Companies Act, 2013.</li><li>Why:&nbsp;The petitioners filed claims to recover their shares/dividends, but the IEPF Authority had not processed these claims for almost two years.</li><li>How:&nbsp;The petitioners provided status reports from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website showing their applications were neither approved nor under process.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioners<ul><li>The IEPF Authority has not acted on their claims for nearly two years, despite clear legal timelines.</li><li>Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules requires the Authority to dispose of refund claims within 60 days of receiving the company’s verification report.</li><li>The inaction is causing undue hardship and is contrary to law.</li></ul> Respondent (IEPF Authority)<ul><li>Represented by Senior Panel Counsel.</li><li>The judgment does not detail their arguments, but the implication is that the Authority had not processed the claims within the stipulated time.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents &amp; Provisions</h3><ul><li>Section 124(5) &amp; (6) of the Companies Act, 2013:&nbsp;Governs transfer of unclaimed shares/dividends to the IEPF and the right of claimants to reclaim them.</li><li>Rule 7(3) of the IEPF Rules:&nbsp;The company must send an offline verification report to the IEPF Authority within 30 days of receiving a claim in Form IEPF-5.</li><li>Rule 7(4) of the IEPF Rules:&nbsp;The Authority must order the refund after receiving the verification report, crediting the amount to the claimant’s DEMAT account.</li><li>Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules:&nbsp;The Authority must dispose of refund claims within 60 days of receiving the verification report.</li></ul>No specific case law names are cited in the judgment; only statutory provisions and rules are referenced.<h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>Decision:&nbsp;The High Court directed the IEPF Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioners’ claims in accordance with law, within 90 days from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment.</li><li>Reasoning:&nbsp;The court noted the applications had been pending for nearly two years, far exceeding the 60-day period mandated by Rule 7(6). The court did not comment on the merits of the claims, only on the delay.</li><li>Order:&nbsp;The writ petition was disposed of with the above direction.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: What is the IEPF?A: The Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) is a government fund where unclaimed dividends and shares are transferred after seven years. Claimants can apply to reclaim their shares/dividends. Q2: Why did the petitioners go to court?A: Their applications to reclaim shares/dividends from the IEPF were pending for almost two years, despite legal rules requiring a much faster process. Q3: What did the court decide?A: The court ordered the IEPF Authority to process and decide the claims within 90 days. Q4: Did the court say the petitioners should get their shares/dividends back?A: No, the court only ordered that their claims be considered promptly. It did not decide on the merits of the claims. Q5: What law governs this process?A: Section 124(5) &amp; (6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 7 of the IEPF Rules. Q6: What happens if the IEPF Authority doesn’t act in 90 days?A: The judgment doesn’t specify consequences, but failure to comply could lead to further legal action or contempt proceedings.

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/CA-HC-Kerala-10247-2025.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>Sageer Rashid K.A & Others v. Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (IEPF), Ministry of Corporate Affairs (High Court of Kerala)W.P.(C) No. 10247 of 2025.Date: 8th April 2025<h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Timely Processing Required: The IEPF Authority must process refund claims within 60 days of receiving the company’s verification report, as per Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules.</li><li>Court Intervention: The High Court can direct authorities to act when statutory timelines are not followed.</li><li>No Decision on Merits: The court did not decide whether the petitioners’ claims were valid, only that they must be considered promptly.</li><li>Clear Legal Framework: The judgment reinforces the process under Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 7 of the IEPF Rules.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Did the IEPF Authority fail to process the petitioners’ claims for refund of shares and dividends within the legally mandated time, and should the court direct the authority to act expeditiously?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Who: 53 petitioners, all individuals whose shares and unclaimed dividends in various listed companies were transferred to the IEPF.</li><li>What: Their shares/dividends were moved to the IEPF after being unclaimed for seven years, as per Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013.</li><li>Why: The petitioners filed claims to recover their shares/dividends, but the IEPF Authority had not processed these claims for almost two years.</li><li>How: The petitioners provided status reports from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website showing their applications were neither approved nor under process.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioners<ul><li>The IEPF Authority has not acted on their claims for nearly two years, despite clear legal timelines.</li><li>Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules requires the Authority to dispose of refund claims within 60 days of receiving the company’s verification report.</li><li>The inaction is causing undue hardship and is contrary to law.</li></ul> Respondent (IEPF Authority)<ul><li>Represented by Senior Panel Counsel.</li><li>The judgment does not detail their arguments, but the implication is that the Authority had not processed the claims within the stipulated time.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents & Provisions</h3><ul><li>Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013: Governs transfer of unclaimed shares/dividends to the IEPF and the right of claimants to reclaim them.</li><li>Rule 7(3) of the IEPF Rules: The company must send an offline verification report to the IEPF Authority within 30 days of receiving a claim in Form IEPF-5.</li><li>Rule 7(4) of the IEPF Rules: The Authority must order the refund after receiving the verification report, crediting the amount to the claimant’s DEMAT account.</li><li>Rule 7(6) of the IEPF Rules: The Authority must dispose of refund claims within 60 days of receiving the verification report.</li></ul>No specific case law names are cited in the judgment; only statutory provisions and rules are referenced.<h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>Decision: The High Court directed the IEPF Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioners’ claims in accordance with law, within 90 days from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment.</li><li>Reasoning: The court noted the applications had been pending for nearly two years, far exceeding the 60-day period mandated by Rule 7(6). The court did not comment on the merits of the claims, only on the delay.</li><li>Order: The writ petition was disposed of with the above direction.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: What is the IEPF?A: The Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) is a government fund where unclaimed dividends and shares are transferred after seven years. Claimants can apply to reclaim their shares/dividends. Q2: Why did the petitioners go to court?A: Their applications to reclaim shares/dividends from the IEPF were pending for almost two years, despite legal rules requiring a much faster process. Q3: What did the court decide?A: The court ordered the IEPF Authority to process and decide the claims within 90 days. Q4: Did the court say the petitioners should get their shares/dividends back?A: No, the court only ordered that their claims be considered promptly. It did not decide on the merits of the claims. Q5: What law governs this process?A: Section 124(5) & (6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 7 of the IEPF Rules. Q6: What happens if the IEPF Authority doesn’t act in 90 days?A: The judgment doesn’t specify consequences, but failure to comply could lead to further legal action or contempt proceedings.

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Full News

Kerala High Court Orders IEPF to Decide Shareholder Claims Within 90 Days