TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the original certificates are in the physical possession of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner. This order will not come in the way of the 1st Respondent/petitioner to move before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction for appropriate relief, including declaration of title over the shares in question and/or for declaration that the transfer in favour of the 2nd Respondent or the 8th Respondent are illegal, being based on impersonation and fraud - petition dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 176 and 177 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2017 - S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. (Chairperson) and Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Mr Rajesh Ranjan, Mr Neeraj Matta and Mr Joel, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr S.M. Sundaram, Advocate, Mr Sahil Khanna, Advocate. ORDER These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant to set aside the order dated 20th March 2017 alongwith consequential orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 031308 098714 19405059 19405158 100 031308 098715 19405159 19405258 100 031308 098716 19405259 19405358 100 TOTAL 500 14. The original of these certificates, in the physical form, are still in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner may take adequate steps to get the same demoted after due confirmation of the rectification 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts 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 fabrication of documents and fraud played and as a complaint is pending with the Okhla Police, it was not open to the Tribunal to pass the order. 11. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the shares have been dematerialised, and as the matter is with the Depository Authority, the question of rectification of Register under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not arise. 12. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner relied on the impugned order and submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts that fraud has been committed and Securities Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) is verifying the matter has passed the impugned order. 13. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the Tribunal has given the following reasons to issue direction: 4. In the reply filed by Respondent No. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter. It was only after specific directions of the Tribunal that Respondent No. 3 has initiated an enquiry in the alleged fraud perpetuated upon the petitioner. They have also apprised 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
