JUDGMENT :

1. 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 Adesh Kaur.

2. The Company Petition was preferred by the 1st Respondent - Mrs. Adesh Kaur - under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 praying for rectification of the Register of Members of Appellant company and to record her name in respect of 903 equity shares. Further prayer was made for recovery of all her entitlements such as dividends, rights issue, bonus shares or any similar entitlement etc., she has been deprived of.

3. The Tribunal by impugned order held that the Respondent/ petitioner is entitled for rectification of Register of Shareholders and allowed the petition with following directions:-

"13. Given the facts of this, this Bench is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to rectification of Register of Shareholder maintained by the Respondent No. 1 company in Folio No. 031308 registering her as the rightful owner of 903 shares, detail of which are provided hereunder :-

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 company. Reliance was placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision to be forged whether it said to be so only to exclude the jurisdiction of the court or it is genuinely so The Apex Court further observed while deciding such issue, the Court should take into consideration the submissions of Respondents to find out whether the dispute would come within the scope of rectification or not.

5. In the present case, the Appellant raised dispute before the Tribunal and pleaded that on 7th November 2012, the 2nd Respondent received a 'transfer deed' along with share certificates for 903 shares lodged by one Mr. Vikas Tara Singh (8th Respondent herein) to transfer the said shares in his favour. After verification and due diligence, 2nd Respondent transferred the said shares in favour of the 8th Respondent Mr. Vikas Tara Singh and transferred shares were sent to him in due course.

6. On 28th December 2012, the 2nd Respondent received a request from 8th Respondent Mr. Vikas Tara Singh, for dematerialisation of the said 903 shares. Alter verification and due diligence on 4th November 2013, the demat request was confirmed by 2nd Respondent