Tribunal rules in favor of Respondent, directing share ownership rectification. Dismisses Company Petition due to unresolved disputes.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, directing the rectification of the Register of Shareholders to reflect her ownership of 903 shares. The Appellant's arguments challenging the maintainability of the petition based on fraud and alleged forgeries were considered. Due to unresolved disputes over ownership and pending criminal complaints, the Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition, allowing the Respondent to pursue further legal action in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction for resolution of the share ownership issues.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of Register of Members under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The Appellant filed appeals to set aside the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal regarding the rectification of the Register of Members in favor of the Respondent, Mrs. Adesh Kaur, for 903 equity shares. The Tribunal ordered the shares to be recorded in her name along with all related entitlements.

2. The Company Petition was filed by Mrs. Adesh Kaur under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking rectification of the Register of Members to reflect her ownership of the shares and to claim her entitlements such as dividends, bonus shares, etc.

3. The Tribunal held in favor of the Respondent, directing the rectification of the Register of Shareholders to reflect Mrs. Adesh Kaur as the rightful owner of the 903 shares, which were detailed in the order along with directions for the necessary steps to be taken.

4. The Appellant argued that the petition was not maintainable as per the Supreme Court's decision in a previous case, emphasizing the need to verify disputed documents and alleged forgeries to determine rectification eligibility under the law.

5. The Appellant raised disputes regarding the ownership of the shares, alleging fraud, impersonation, and fabrication of documents. They highlighted the transfer of shares to another party and the subsequent dematerialization process.

6. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties, acknowledging the fraud allegations and the involvement of SEBI in verifying such matters. The Tribunal noted the acknowledgment of fraud by the Appellant but found certain procedures not followed in the case.

7. Due to the allegations of impersonation, forgery, and pending criminal complaints, the Tribunal concluded that it was not appropriate to exercise power under Section 59 solely based on physical possession of share certificates by the Respondent.

8. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the judgment and dismissed the Company Petition, allowing the Respondent to seek appropriate relief in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction for further actions regarding the ownership and legality of the share transfers based on impersonation and fraud.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision and the arguments presented by both parties.

---