{"id":372147,"date":"2026-01-09T14:00:40","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T08:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=372147"},"modified":"2026-01-09T13:25:14","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T07:55:14","slug":"valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/","title":{"rendered":"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi<\/span>: In the present case, a company appeal was filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 59<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a> (‘2013 Act’) by the NCLT, Hyderabad (‘Tribunal’), which rejected the application on ground of non-maintainability. The Bench comprising Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Judicial Member)<\/span> and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member)<\/span> dismissed the appeal, stating that the findings of the Tribunal, did not suffer any apparent error warranting interference. The Appellate Tribunal stated that Section 59 was exclusively limited to the rectification of the register of members, but the relief sought by the appellant pertained to a direction for issuance of a valid share certificate, which did not fall within the scope of Section 59. Further, the appellant did not possess a valid share certificate, thus, was not competent to initiate proceedings under Section 59 for rectification of the register of members.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The appellant had initiated the proceedings under Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> seeking directions to Respondent 1, Biochemical & Synthetic Products (P) Ltd. to issue valid share certificates aggregating to 12.5% of the total equity shares of Respondent 1 company; to rectify the register of members by entering the appellant’s name as a member and shareholder; and to direct Respondent 2, Registrar of Companies, to take action against Respondent 1 company under Section 447<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The respondent submitted that the appellant would have no locus to stand in the present proceedings owing to the implications of the arbitration proceedings and the orders passed therein. Moreover, an Arbitration Petition had already been instituted under Sections 11(5)<\/a>, 11(9)<\/a>, and 11(12)(a)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, wherein the cause of action and the relief sought were similar, particularly with respect to the issuance of a legally valid share certificate. The appellant had filed a memorandum expressing his intent to withdraw from the arbitration proceedings, and had voluntarily opted out to pursue other appropriate remedies, apprehending a potential conflict between an arbitral award and the proceedings he intended to initiate.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any valid share certificate issued in favour of the appellant by Respondent 1, rectification of the register of members could not be undertaken. It was further held that no privity of contract between the appellant and Respondent 1 had been established by any evidence on record.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the issue for consideration was whether the appellant was at all entitled to invoke Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> for rectification of the register of members, in light of the so-called share certificates which he claimed to hold in Respondent 1 company.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Appellate Tribunal, upon perusal of the share certificate placed on record, held that it could not be said to be a validly executed share certificate, owing to its apparent anomalies. Thus, based on such a defective document, proceedings under Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> could not have been initiated.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal observed that the bar under Section 430<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> was inapplicable, as the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction extends only to matters for which the 2013 Act provides a specific remedy or mechanism.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal held that the relief sought under Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> pertained to issuance of a share certificate and not rectification of the register of members. Further noted that the first and foremost pre-condition for invoking Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> was that the appellant must already be a valid holder of a share certificate prior to invoking the provision. A direction for issuance of a share certificate squarely fell outside the scope and ambit of Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal, based on the correspondence, recorded that on the date of filing of application, the appellant did not possess a valid share certificate.<\/p>\n

Further, the Appellate Tribunal held that Section 469<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> was an enabling provision constituting subordinate legislation and intending only to facilitate implementation of the 2013 Act. Also, Rule 70(5) of the NCLT Rules, 2016<\/a> could not come to the aid of the appellant, in view of the inherent restrictions imposed by Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> itself, which governed the principal substantive provisions relating to the rectification of the register of members.<\/p>\n

It was further noted that the appellant had voluntarily withdrawn from the arbitration proceedings and instead chose to initiate proceedings under the 2013 Act before the Tribunal.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal observed that the share certificate on the basis of which the appellant had raised his claim for invocation of Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> did not satisfy any of the conditions prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014<\/a>, despite the appellant’s attempt to establish compliance. The appellant, who did not possess a valid share certificate, was not competent to initiate proceedings under Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> for rectification of the register of members.<\/p>\n

Further, it was held that the possibility of rectifying share certificates or any shortcomings that may arise in the issuance of a valid share certificate was earlier made rectifiable in light of the provisions contained in Section 113<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956<\/a>, which dealt with the limitation of time for issuance of a valid share certificate, particularly the conditions set out under Section 113(3)<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thus, Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> was exclusively limited to the rectification of the register of members. The relief sought pertained to a direction for issuance of a valid share certificate, which did not fall within the scope of Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a>. There was no anomaly in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Since there was no privity of contract as employer and employee between the appellant and Respondent 1, and as the matter involved complex questions of fact requiring scrutiny of evidence before arriving at a conclusion, a proceeding under Section 59, which was summary in nature, could not be invoked. Hence, the rejection of the application by the impugned order, holding the proceeding under Section 59<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a> to be not maintainable, did not suffer from any apparent error warranting interference. The company appeal was therefore dismissed, and all interlocutory applications stood closed.<\/p>\n

[Mohan Ram Prasad Devineni v. Biochemical & Synthetic Products (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2124<\/a>, decided on 23-12-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Appellant:<\/span> R. Moneshaa, Advocate<\/p>\n

For Respondents:<\/span> P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate, Vishnu Kanth Mundada, Shadab Azhar, Arpit Kumar Mishra, Shravya Tirunahari, Advocates for Respondent 1<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The pre-condition for invoking Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 is that the Applicant must already be a valid holder of a share certificate prior to invoking the provision.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67523,"featured_media":372148,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[96511,88089,96513,96516,96514,96515,96512],"class_list":["post-372147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-justice-sharad-kumar-sharma","tag-nclat-chennai","tag-rule-70-nct-rules-2016","tag-rule-82-companies-share-capital-and-debentures-rules-2014","tag-section-469-companies-act-2013","tag-share-certificate-under-section-59-companies-act","tag-technical-member-jatindranath-swain"],"yoast_head":"\nValid Share Certificate cannot be issued under S. 59 Companies Act, 2013:NCLAT|SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"NCLAT, Chennai held that valid share certificate could not be issued under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 but could only be rectified.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NCLAT, Chennai held that valid share certificate could not be issued under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 but could only be rectified.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-09T08:30:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Shikha\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shikha\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Shikha\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a\"},\"headline\":\"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-09T08:30:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1068,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma\",\"NCLAT Chennai\",\"Rule 70 NCT Rules 2016\",\"Rule 8(2) Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules 2014\",\"Section 469 Companies Act 2013\",\"share certificate under Section 59 Companies Act\",\"Technical Member Jatindranath Swain\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Tribunals\\\/Commissions\\\/Regulatory Bodies\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/\",\"name\":\"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under S. 59 Companies Act, 2013:NCLAT|SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-09T08:30:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a\"},\"description\":\"NCLAT, Chennai held that valid share certificate could not be issued under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 but could only be rectified.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"share certificate under Section 59 Companies Act\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/09\\\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a\",\"name\":\"Shikha\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Shikha\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/shikha\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under S. 59 Companies Act, 2013:NCLAT|SCC Times","description":"NCLAT, Chennai held that valid share certificate could not be issued under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 but could only be rectified.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT","og_description":"NCLAT, Chennai held that valid share certificate could not be issued under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 but could only be rectified.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-09T08:30:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Shikha","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shikha","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/"},"author":{"name":"Shikha","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a"},"headline":"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT","datePublished":"2026-01-09T08:30:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/"},"wordCount":1068,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp","keywords":["Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma","NCLAT Chennai","Rule 70 NCT Rules 2016","Rule 8(2) Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules 2014","Section 469 Companies Act 2013","share certificate under Section 59 Companies Act","Technical Member Jatindranath Swain"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/","name":"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under S. 59 Companies Act, 2013:NCLAT|SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-09T08:30:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a"},"description":"NCLAT, Chennai held that valid share certificate could not be issued under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 but could only be rectified.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"share certificate under Section 59 Companies Act"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/valid-share-certificate-cannot-be-issued-under-s-59-companies-act-2013-nclat\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Valid Share Certificate cannot be issued under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013: NCLAT"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/2affc03135e21686bc983a01adf7101a","name":"Shikha","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e1f2590b7e890a7cb68d550c20c899eb796ccc7737e8ea14aa27d44a31366bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shikha"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shikha\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/share-certificate-under-Section-59-Companies-Act.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":326323,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/11\/procedural-orders-directing-consolidation-of-related-petitions-not-appealable-under-section-421-of-companies-act-nclat-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":372147,"position":0},"title":"Procedural orders directing consolidation of related petitions not appealable under Section 421 of Companies Act: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"July 11, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCLAT criticized the appellants for unnecessarily burdening the Tribunal with excessive documentation, voluminous records and citations of little value, thereby wasting Tribunal\u2019s resources and acting contrary to professional ethics.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358156,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/nclat-chennai-member-recuses-from-case-after-higher-judiciary-member-seeks-favourable-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":372147,"position":1},"title":"NCLAT Chennai Judicial Member recuses from IBC appeal after request for favourable order by a revered Higher Judiciary Member","author":"Editor","date":"August 28, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Following the development, the Supreme Court has reportedly ordered an investigation into the claim raised by the NCLAT Judicial Member.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Higher Judiciary Member seeks favourable order","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Higher-Judiciary-Member-seeks-favourable-order.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Higher-Judiciary-Member-seeks-favourable-order.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Higher-Judiciary-Member-seeks-favourable-order.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Higher-Judiciary-Member-seeks-favourable-order.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":350472,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/12\/nclat-denies-relief-byjus-appeal-filed-against-nclt-status-quo-order-shareholding-in-akash\/","url_meta":{"origin":372147,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Interlocutory and Consensual Order\u2019; NCLAT denies relief to BYJU\u2019s in appeal filed against NCLT\u2019s status quo order on its shareholding in Aakash","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"June 12, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe impugned order is exclusively interlocutory in nature which is yet to be considered on merits and yet to be given a final shape till the conduct of the final hearing when the interim reliefs prayed for, are heard and decided by the Tribunal.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/resolution-plan.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":208139,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/15\/nclat-no-appeal-against-reference-of-arbitration-lies-under-section-421-of-companies-act-2013\/","url_meta":{"origin":372147,"position":3},"title":"NCLAT | No appeal against reference of arbitration lies under Section 421 of Companies Act, 2013","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 15, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, member (Judicial) dismissed an appeal filed against the order of National Company Law Law Tribunal (Bengaluru). By the impugned order, application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223111,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/nclat-companys-name-restored-in-register-of-companies-where-registrar-failed-to-comply-with-s-2486-of-companies-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":372147,"position":4},"title":"NCLAT | Company’s name restored in Register of Companies where Registrar failed to comply with S. 248(6) of Companies Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice Jarat Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) and Balvinder Singh and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra, Members (Technical), set aside the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby it had confirmed the decision of Registrar of Companies striking off the name\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":263806,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/17\/reduction-of-capital-is-a-domestic-affair-of-a-particular-company\/","url_meta":{"origin":372147,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Reduction of Capital\u2019 is a \u2018Domestic Affair\u2019 of a particular company in which, ordinary, a Tribunal will not interfere because of the reason that it is a \u2018majority decision\u2019 which prevails: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 17, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Venugopal. M, Judicial Member and Kanthi Narahari, Technical Member, held that \u2018Reduction of Capital\u2019 is a \u2018Domestic Affair\u2019 of a particular company in which, ordinary, a Tribunal will not interfere because of the reason that it is a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67523"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=372147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372147\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/372148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=372147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=372147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=372147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}