Appeal allows dematerialisation; company wrongly refused duplicate certificates, violating Regulation 31(2) LODR and Depositories Act
AT allowed the appeal, set aside SEBI's communication dated April 19, 2023, and held the company's refusal to dematerialize shares or issue duplicate certificates to be patently erroneous and contrary to Regulation 31(2) of the LODR Regulations and the Depositories Act. Section 58 CA was held inapplicable as no transfer was involved, and the company's AOA refusal ground was unreasonable. SEBI has jurisdiction over such complaints and erred in disposing of the matter. The listed company must ensure promoters' shareholding is fully dematerialized.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether a complaint on SEBI's SCORES platform challenging a company's refusal to dematerialize shares is maintainable before SEBI and this Tribunal where the company contends alternate remedies under the Companies Act and master circulars exist.
2. Whether Section 58 (refusal of registration and appeal) of the Companies Act applies to a refusal to dematerialize shares or issue duplicate certificates, or whether that provision is confined to transfer/registration of securities.
3. Whether a company can refuse a promoter's request for dematerialization on the basis of its Articles (Article 15) citing "larger interest" or undesirable transferees, when the request concerns dematerialization/duplicate issuance rather than transfer.
4. Whether the company's conduct violated Regulation 31(2) of the LODR Regulations and/or Rules 9 / 9A of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 (dematerialization obligations for promoters and unlisted public companies), and whether SEBI improperly disposed of the SCORES complaint without substantive consideration of these provisions.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Maintainability of SCORES complaint before SEBI / Tribunal
Legal framework: SEBI's SCORES mechanism and Master Circular on investor grievance redressal provide for investor complaints against listed companies, intermediaries or MIIs; statutory jurisdiction under SEBI Act and LODR extends to enforcement of SEBI regulations.
Precedent Treatment: No specific precedent was invoked in the judgment; the Tribunal treated SEBI's statutory duty under its regulatory framework as primary.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held SCORES is intended for investors whose securities-market grievances remain unresolved. Invocation of stock exchange grievance mechanisms under the Master Circular does not oust SEBI's jurisdiction; SEBI must examine whether complaints disclose contraventions of the SEBI Act or regulations and cannot mechanically forward a company reply and close a matter.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - SEBI has an independent duty to assess SCORES complaints for statutory violations and to take appropriate action; referral to stock exchanges is permissive, not jurisdictional. Obiter - adverse commentary on the wording of SEBI's communication.
Conclusion: The complaint on SCORES was maintainable; SEBI erred in merely forwarding the company's reply and closing the complaint without considering applicable SEBI laws.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Applicability of Section 58 (Companies Act) to dematerialization / duplicate issuance
Legal framework: Section 58 deals with refusal to register transfer or transmission of securities and prescribes notice, appeal to the Tribunal (NCLT) and reliefs for transferees.
Precedent Treatment: No precedent was cited or followed; the Tribunal applied statutory interpretation.
Interpretation and reasoning: Section 58 is focused on transfers/registrations between parties. Dematerialization or issuance of duplicate certificates is conceptually and legally distinct from transfer/registration; thus the statutory remedy under Section 58 (appeal to NCLT) is inapplicable to a refusal to dematerialize or issue duplicates.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 58 does not provide the remedy for refusal to dematerialize or issue duplicate certificates; it is confined to transfers/registrations.
Conclusion: The contention that appellants' sole remedy lay under Section 58 before the NCLT is incorrect; Section 58 is not applicable to the facts concerning dematerialization/duplicate issuance.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Validity of Article-based refusal (Article 15) to dematerialize shares
Legal framework: Company Articles (Article 15) permit refusal to register transfers in certain circumstances (lien, minors, insolvents, undesirable persons) and require written notice and board resolution when registration is refused.
Precedent Treatment: No authority referenced; Tribunal applied textual analysis of the Article.
Interpretation and reasoning: Article 15 explicitly addresses registration of transfers following a change in shareholding; it does not contemplate dematerialization or issuance of duplicate certificates where no transfer is involved. The record lacked any finding that appellants were "undesirable persons." The board's resolution refusing dematerialization on the ground appellants might sell post-dematerialization was found to be speculative and not a permissible ground to refuse dematerialization or duplicate issuance.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Article 15 cannot be legitimately invoked to refuse dematerialization/duplicate issuance; refusal must pertain to transfers and be supported by the Article's stated grounds and procedural requirements. Obiter - rejection of the company's asserted policy rationale as speculative.
Conclusion: The board's resolution refusing dematerialization under Article 15 was patently erroneous and could not sustain denial of dematerialization or duplicate certificates.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Violation of Regulation 31(2) LODR and Rules 9 / 9A of Rules of 2014; SEBI's duty in disposing SCORES complaints
Legal framework: Regulation 31(2) LODR mandates that a listed entity ensure 100% of promoter/promoter-group shareholding is in dematerialized form and maintained continuously. Rules 9 and 9A (Rules of 2014) require promoters to hold securities in dematerialized form in certain contexts and require unlisted public companies to facilitate dematerialization of existing securities in accordance with the Depositories Act and related regulations.
Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited; Tribunal relied on statutory/regulatory text.
Interpretation and reasoning: The appellants were promoters; the company's refusal to dematerialize thus conflicted with Regulation 31(2) where applicable. Even for unlisted public companies, Rules 9A impose an obligation to facilitate dematerialization and to inform security holders and engage with depositories. SEBI, when receiving a SCORES complaint alleging contravention of these provisions, was obliged to consider whether the company had violated SEBI laws and to direct compliance or initiate proceedings; mechanically forwarding the response and closing the complaint without substantive consideration amounted to failure of duty.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a listed company must ensure promoters' shareholding is dematerialized under Regulation 31(2); unlisted companies have obligations under Rules 9/9A to facilitate dematerialization. SEBI must actively assess SCORES complaints for statutory/regulatory violations and cannot close them merely by transmitting company replies.
Conclusion: The company's refusal to dematerialize/issue duplicates contravened Regulation 31(2) (and Rules 9/9A where applicable). SEBI's communication closing the complaint was set aside and SEBI was directed to pass appropriate orders to compel dematerialization within a stipulated timeframe.
RELIEF / DISPOSITION (RATIO CONCLUSION)
The Tribunal set aside SEBI's impugned communication, allowed the appeal, and directed SEBI to issue appropriate directions to ensure dematerialization of the appellants' shares under Regulation 31(2) within four weeks, holding that (i) SEBI's SCORES jurisdiction was properly invoked, (ii) Section 58 was inapplicable to dematerialization/duplicate issuance, (iii) Article-based refusal was inapposite, and (iv) regulatory dematerialization obligations were not complied with.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
