TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, in Company Petition No. 8/59/15. By the impugned order the Tribunal ordered to record the shares in question in the name of the Respondent Mrs. Adesh Kaur. 2. The Company Petition was preferred by the 1st Respondent -Mrs. Adesh Kaur - under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 praying for rectification of the Register of Members of Appellant company and to record her name in respect of 903 equity shares. Further prayer was made for recovery of all her entitlements such as dividends, rights issue, bonus shares or any similar entitlement etc., she has been deprived of. 3. The Tribunal by impugned order held that the Respondent/petitioner is entitled for rectification of Register of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification of the Register having been carried out. 15. The petitioner would also be entitled to all dividends declared on the aforesaid shares which have not been passed on to her. She would also be entitled to any bonus shares or other benefits that may have accrued on these shares. 16. Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs." 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the petition under Section 59 was not maintainable as no name purported to be appearing in the Register of Members of the company. Reliance was placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in "M/s. Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Limited v. M/s. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." (1998) 7 SCC 105. In the said cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner, Mrs. Adesh Kaur, that duplicate share certificates have already been issued on her request dated 4th September 2012 after following the due process of law and completion of documentary formalities. 8. Subsequently, the Appellant received e-mail of 1st Respondent/Petitioner on 2nd June 2014 addressed to the erstwhile Director of the Appellant company and informed about issuance of duplicate shares when she was informed about issuance of duplicate share certificates in favour of 8th Respondent and dematerialisation of subject shares. 9. It is stated that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner by e-mail dated 2nd June 2014 suggested that a fraud had been played upon by her and documents had been fabricated, signature had been forged an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the documents and has submitted that as the facts of the case are disputed, complex and complicated, it would be beyond the summary jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate in respect of the same. It is further submitted that being a listed company in terms of SEBI guidelines they were under the obligation to appoint a common agency (Registration-cum-share transfer agents), which in this case is Respondent No. 2. This work of maintaining the register and looking after transfer of shares, be it in the physical form or in the demat, was mandatorily required to be entrusted to the SEBI-approved agents, over whom they had to control. Having done so, they were no longer liable for maintaining the record of their shareholders or dealing with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Bench that in a similar complaint of one Mr. Manoj Dharamdas Shah, they had initiated enquiry proceeding against Respondents 1 and 2 which culminated in a finding that shares of the complainant Mr. Manoj Dharamdas Shah were fraudulently transferred to a third party. Directions were given for Respondent No. 1 to reinstate the 100 shares to him. 6. Respondent No. 1 has acknowledged that the petitioner is a victim of fraud. This is evident from the acknowledgement in their correspondence dated 11.7.2014 which is reproduced as under: "It appears that some unscrupulous person(s) have allegedly impersonated your identity and misrepresented documents before MCS in order to obtain duplicate Share Certificates and subseq....