Ina Malhotra, Member - (1.) The present petition has been filed u/s. 59 of the Companies Act 2013 praying for rectification of the Register of Members of Respondent No. 1 Company and recording the name of the petitioner in respect of her 903 equity shares. The petitioner has also prayed for recovery of all her entitlements such as dividends, rights issue, bonus shares or any similar entitlement etc she has been deprived of.
(2.) The petitioner's is a classic case of having been defrauded of her valuable property and then being asked to run from pillar to post to prove her title. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a shareholder/member of Respondent No. 1 Company and holds 903 equity shares vide registered folio No. 31308. She continues to be in possession of her original share certificates. Her grievance stems from the fact that on account of a fraud perpetuated upon her, Respondent No. 1 company, through their share transfer agents, first recorded her change of address to Mumbai from Sangrur upon a request by a fraudster and later issued duplicate shares without exercising due care and diligence. The said shares were then sold by the imposter to Respondent No. 8, Sh. Vikas Tara Singh, resulting in replacing her name as the registered owner in their Register of Shareholders. Respondent No. 7, who is alleged to be an impersonator fraudulently applied for change of address from Sangrur in the state of Punjab to Mumbai, Maharashtra on the basis on forged and fabricated documents. The impersonator then lodged a complaint reporting loss of the share certificates and prayed for issuance of duplicate shares. Within months of obtaining the duplicate shares, Respondent No. 7 sold the same to Respondent No. 8. All this was carried out behind the back of the petitioner and she was oblivious of the fraud being played.
(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner that on account of the illness of her in-laws, she remained pre-occupied and had to travel frequently to Dehradun to look after them and therefore did not remember where the share certificates were kept. Since she had the counter foils of the dividend receipt, on 05.07.2006 she enquired from Respondent No. 1 about the formalities for opening a demat account and for transfer of her correspondence address to New Delhi. It was then that she was shocked to learn that her address had been changed to one at Mumbai and later duplicate shares were issued to Respondent No. 7 (her impersonator) and sold to Respondent No. 8. Upon her repeated complaints, the company realized that fraud had been played and filed a police complaint to investigate into the matter. It also emerged that several other investors had also been duped in a similar manner, pointing to a modus operandi by the insider employees of the company and/or their agents, Respondent No. 2. Despite the petitioner running from pillar to post, as her grievance remained un-addressed, she has petitioned this Tribunal for appropriate relief.;