TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Shareholders and allowed the petition with f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res 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 case the Hon'ble Supreme Court deliberating on Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 held that if the Court should see for itself whether the documents are disputed and any documents are alleged to be forged whether it said to be so only to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 and that there was a possibility of impersonation. 10. According to Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, there being dispute about the fraud in respect of the ownership of the claim of the subjective shares and suspected impersonation of a shareholder and fabr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 transfer of shares and issuance of duplicate certificates. It is further stated that as per the record the shares had been transferred and are presently registered in the name of Mr. Vikas Tara Singh, Respondent No. 8. It is also stated that their Share Transfer-Agent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections 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 subsequently transferred them to third parties. EML is already enquiring from MCS further details in your case and would like to assure you that all documents and information available with MCS would be shared with you. For your reference, the copies of the documents including the request l....