Legal representatives are entitled to transmission of shares, and companies must act promptly on verified claims per established rules.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to respondent nos.3 and 4 to transfer the shares in favour of the petitioner within the stipulated period with respect to 74 shares owned by late Sri.Katari Naganna having L.F.No.00049 in terms of legal notice dated 07.02.2024 vide Annexure-A.

2. The facts made out are that Sri.Katari Naganna, the father of the petitioner was the holder shares belonging to the 4^th respondent. After his death, he was succeeded by his legal representatives. It is also a matter of fact that the legal representatives of deceased Katari Naganna had approached the Civil Court in P & SC No.18/2021 which came to be disposed off granting succession certificate to the petitioner and 8 other legal heirs of Katari Naganna with respect to 74 shares of the

4^th respondent-Company.

3. It is further submitted that other legal representatives have executed 'Affidavit-cum-No Objection Certificate' in favour of the petitioner. The respondent- Company have informed the petitioner that after necessary process has been made at their end, the

3^rd respondent-IEPF Authority was called upon to take further steps for transition. However, it is submitted that the 3^rd respondent has failed to take action for transmission of shares, accordingly the present petition has been filed.

4. It is noticed that, in terms of the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules, 2016 ("2016 Rules, for short), procedure is stipulated for transmission of shares. Rule 7 (6) (8) and (10) are of relevance and are extracted below:

"7. Refunds to claimants from Fund: ….. (6) An application received for refund of any claim under this rule duly verified by the concerned company shall be disposed of by the Authority within sixty days from the date of receipt of the verification report from the company, complete in all respects and any delay beyond sixty days shall be recorded in writing specifying the reasons for the delay and the same shall be communicated to the claimant in writing or by electronic means.

(7) In cases, where the application is incomplete, a communication shall be sent to the claimant by the Authority detailing deficiencies of the application.

(8) In case, claimant is a legal heir or successor or administrator or nominee of the registered security holder, he has to ensure that the transmission process is completed by the company before filing any claim with the Authority.

(10) The company shall be solely liable under all circumstances whatsoever to indemnity the IEPF Authority in case of any dispute or lawsuit that may be initiated due to any incongruity or inconsistency or disparity in the verification report or otherwise. The IEPF Authority shall not be liable to indemnity the security holder or Company for any liability arising out of any discrepancy in verification report submitted etc., leading to any litigation or complaint arising thereof."

5. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that Rule 7 would apply even for transmission of shares is to be accepted taking note of the language used in Rule 7 (1).

6. In terms of Rule 7 (6), once the claim form is duly verified by the concerned Company and the same is forwarded to the 3^rd respondent authority, the same has to be disposed off within the time limit prescribed i.e., 60 days. Insofar as rightful owners are concerned, the succession certificate issued is evident of the names of the claimants.

7. The 4^th respondent Company in its statement of objections filed has taken the stand that the 3^rd respondent has taken a precautionary measure on placing of whole transfer of shares and succession cer