9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nders for the same, a Company Petition was filed on 31.07.2015 before the Company Law Board, which was then taken up under the Amended Act by the National Company Law Tribunal. Held that:- the Appellate Tribunal in relegating the appellant to a further proceeding was not correct. We, therefore, setaside the Appellate Tribunal s order and reinstate that of the Tribunal dated 20.03.2017. - Company directed to rectify its register, insofar as the physical share certificates are concerned, and the concerned depository to rectify the demat records in accordance with this order. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1942619427 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2018 - MR. ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN AND Ms. INDU MALHOTRA, JJ. For The Appellant(s) : Mr. K.V. Viswanath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2012, transferred the said shares to one Vikas Tara Singh, respondent No. 8, resident of Malad, Mumbai by using the forged signature of the appellant. At this stage, it is important to note that respondent No. 8, though served in the present proceedings, has not appeared either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate Tribunal and has not appeared before us. The appellant, sometime in 2014, came to know through the Company Secretary of Respondent No.1 that duplicate share certificates had been given to somebody else who had subsequently transferred them to a third party. As soon as she became aware of the fraud that was perpetrated on her, the appellant requested the Company to issue revalidated fresh share certificates for the said 903 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nied to by the respondents. Under such circumstances, vague denial to escape any liability and to suggest that the petitioner initiates a Civil Suit is viewed as an attempt not to redress the grievance which has primarily arisen out of the fraud played by the employees of the Respondent Company or their Agents. Apart from guidelines of Respondent No. 3 that unequivocally make the Respondent Company liable for the acts of their Register cum Share Transfer Agents, the law on the point is clear that the Principals are liable for the acts of their agents. The NCLT then went on to state that the original share certificates, which were still in physical form with the appellant, could get demated after due confirmation from the register whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat this Court should be careful in reinstating the Tribunal s order inasmuch as it is not at all clear as to whether respondent No. 8 has, in fact, been entered on the register or not. It is his further submission that since the shares are now demated, it is not his client that should be directed to put the appellant back on the share register but the concerned depository. We are of the view that the Tribunal was absolutely correct in not relegating the appellant to any further proceedings inasmuch this is an open and shut case of fraud in which the appellant has been the victim, and Respondent No. 2 the perpetrator. Equally, it is clear that the due procedure that has been outlined in paragraph 23 of the RTI Circular dated 09.05.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
