9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, JUDGMENT R.F.NARIMAN, J. The present case discloses a very sordid state of facts. The appellant before us is a resident of Punjab, and had acquired in all 903 equity shares in the respondent No. 1Company. This acquisition took place way back in the year 199495. It appears that sometime in 2012, another Ms. Adesh Kaur, who is a resident of Mumbai impersonated the appellant and requested respondent No. 2 to change the address from Punjab to Mumbai. It is not disputed before us that the standard procedure to be followed was not followed by respondent No. 2, and the aforesaid change of address was despite the requirements of Circular No. 1 dated 09.05.2001. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are were not adhered to in the process of issuance of duplicate shares, as otherwise such fraud would easily have been unearthed. In the order passed by the NCLT, the NCLT adverted to the aforesaid facts and afforded relief to the appellant in the following terms: "The objection of Respondent No. 1 that the case in hand cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal is a frivolous attempt to escape any liability and or grant relief to the petitioner. This Bench fails to understand why the petitioner should resort to a civil court in order to prove her title. Apart from her oral testimony and her original share certificates, there is little else to be adduced in evidence even in a Civil Suit. She has her original certificates in hand. The responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a suit. Shri K.V.Vishwanathan, learned senior appearing for the appellant, has commended for our acceptance the order of NCLT, together with its reasoning. Learned senior counsel has stated that there is really no contest in the present proceedings inasmuch as respondent No. 8, who would be affected by the NCLT order, has chosen not to appear in the proceedings throughout. He has also referred to and relied upon a RTI Circular No. 1 dated 09.05.2001 and the fact that SEBI has, in its application to delete itself from the array of parties stated, on 20.05.2016, that respondent No. 2 has issued duplicate shares without following the proper procedure and without exercising due care and diligence. Shri Pratap Venugopal, learned counsel appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
