Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 625 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABADIssue of duplicate shares - transfer of shares - Held that:- In the case on hand, there is no specific provision in the Companies Act under which this Tribunal can give a direction to the Board of the Company to issue duplicate shares. However, when there is refusal on the part of the Board of the Company to issue duplicate shares, if after it was satisfied that the share certificates were lost or when such power was not properly exercised by the Board, it can certainly be challenged. In the case on hand, the challenge involves title of the Petitioner to the extent of 6000 Equity Shares of ₹ 2/- each of the first respondent company. In the case on hand, there is a dispute whether the shares of the petitioner were, in fact, transferred by the petitioner in the year 2015 or not. On the basis of a transfer form, the shares were already transferred to Mr. G.K. Dhariwal. Therefore, the issue involved in this case is a disputed question of facts. Moreover, in this case, investigation by SEBI is also pending relating to certain suspicious share transactions that were undertaken by the third respondent and the transfer of shares of the petitioner is one such case. Therefore, pending investigation by SEBI also, it is not proper for this Tribunal to decide the issue. Further, the petitioner did not choose to disclose in the petition that he has already approached SEBI for issuance of duplicate shares and the matter is pending there. It amounts to suppression of material fact since the order, if any, passed may be or may not be in consonance with the order, if any, passed by this Tribunal in this proceeding. Therefore, it is a fit case where the petitioner can approach the civil court. Further, the petitioner did not choose to implead the transferee of shares by name, Mr. G.K. Dhariwal, as a party to this petition. Any order of rectification of the register passed in this proceeding would have a direct effect on the interest of Mr. G.K. Dhariwal. Therefore, Mr. G.K. Dhariwal is not only a proper party, but also a necessary party to this proceeding. But, such person has not been impleaded as a party in this petition. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. This petition is dismissed.
|