Introduction: The recent directive from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs mandating the dematerialization of securities in private companies illustrates this wider regulatory approach, signifying not just an administrative change but a crucial realignment of how corporate ownership frameworks are monitored and regulated.
Dematerialization (“DEMAT”) of shares represents a significant transition from owning physical-certificate-based securities to an electronic format, whereby physical certificates held by investors are converted into equivalent electronic securities, which are then credited to a specific DEMAT account. The shift from tangible to digital securities management has become an essential aspect of today’s capital market framework, tackling issues related to physical certificate management while improving transparency and operational efficiency.
In response to these imperatives, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) on October 27th, 2023 introduced substantive regulatory amendments, through the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023, which incorporated a new rule, i.e., Rule 9B, in the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2015 (“Allotment Rules”).[i] According to Rule 9B of the Allotment Rules, any private company that is not classified as a “small company”[ii] as of March 31st, 2023, must ensure that all its shares are in dematerialised form by June 30th, 2025, following an extension from the original September 30th, 2024 deadline (“DEMAT last date”)[iii].
Through this amendment, the MCA has shown its dedication towards increasing transparency, enhancing liquidity mechanisms, and updating India’s capital market infrastructure. Nonetheless, the mandate brings forth concerns regarding implementation difficulties, compliance costs, and the wider impact on governance structures of private companies. This article critically evaluates the rationale underlying the compulsory dematerialization of securities for private companies in India, analyzing both the anticipated benefits and potential challenges associated with this regulatory change.
DEMATERIALISATION OF SECURITIES IN INDIA
It began with the introduction of the Depositories Act, 1996[iv], which established the fundamental legal framework for the electronic holding and transfer of securities. This legislation led to the formation of two national depositories – National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL) and Central Depository Services Limited (CDSL), marking a shift towards a modern, technology-driven capital market infrastructure.
On 27th January 2004, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) released an extensive report addressing critical issues affecting the paper-based share certificate system[v]. This report highlighted various issues, including fraudulent and counterfeit certificates undermining market integrity, expenses related to share certificate distribution, signature discrepancies causing transaction delays, prolonged share transfer processes affecting market liquidity, and more. The report acted as a catalyst for the adoption of the dematerialization framework. The regulatory framework later broadened to include multiple financial instruments such as Equity shares, Preference shares, Units, Debentures, Bonds, and Warrants.
The Companies Act, 1956[vi], served as a foundation for the DEMAT of shares where only the listed companies making a public offer of Rs.10 crores or more were required to DEMAT their shares[vii]. Later, the Companies Act, 2013 (“The Act”)[viii] has advanced significantly in this area by including Section 29[ix], which addressed the issuance and transfer of securities in dematerialised form. Further, the MCA’s October 2018 Amendment required the DEMAT of securities of unlisted public firms through the addition of Rule 9A in the Allotment Rules, 2014[x]. Thus, prior to this new rule, private companies were entirely excluded from the regulatory ambit.
RATIONALE AND BENEFITS BEHIND THE MOVE
The mandatory dematerialization of shares in private companies signifies a strategic regulatory measure aimed at tackling systemic weakness in India’s corporate governance structure. The intention behind this action appears to be not just to enhance the simplicity of conducting business in India but also to limit benami transactions, decrease legal disputes tied to fraudulent share transfers or inappropriate share pledges. Possessing shares in dematerialised form brings advantages for the shareholder as well. Concerning the financial institutions encountering difficulties with foreclosures of physical share pledges, this will be a significant step since foreclosing dematerialized shares is a much easier process. Additionally, this action would promote transparency and could assist governmental bodies in more effectively tracking private company shareholders and collecting sufficient stamp duty on share transfers.
Unauthorized persons will find it difficult to manipulate shares in private companies once securities are dematerialized, as the ownership of particular shares by each shareholder is recorded and observed. In particular, the government aims to monitor the buying and selling of shares in private companies; therefore, the DEMAT system for shares has been introduced for these companies. Public companies face extensive disclosure standards mandated by SEBI and continuous market oversight, whereas private companies function in a more obscure setting, providing limited information beyond what is legally required. This lack of regulatory balance has opened doors for exploitation, especially concerning beneficial ownership tracking and transaction transparency.
Aside from the Income Tax Return, which requires the disclosure of extensive information regarding subsidiary companies and other relevant details, private companies do not disclose their strategies regarding compliance or any other forms. This leads to Benami transactions. To curb this, the government implemented the Benami Transactions Act, 2016,[xi] and along with this, integrated the DEMAT requirements. Undoubtedly, this amendment represents a methodical strategy for the capture of beneficial ownership. This mechanism is especially efficient as it generates simultaneous records of ownership transfers without delay to facilitate document tampering or retroactive modifications.
Dematerialized securities offer a powerful tool for combating shell company operations. Shell companies, characterized by minimal personnel, absence of tangible assets, and lack of substantive business activities, are typically designed to engage in fraudulent activities like tax evasion or regulatory avoidance. In contrast to tangible certificates that may be altered or forged, dematerialized securities preserve unchangeable records of ownership transfers, generating a unique digital footprint for every transaction. This digital framework allows authorities to track suspicious trading patterns and ownership structures in real time and cross-check with other databases (PAN, Aadhaar) to detect potential fraudulent entities. This action would also greatly reduce the risk of shareholder impersonation and maintain the integrity and stability of the market.
Moreover, Dematerialization facilitates enhanced regulatory oversight through automated compliance monitoring and reporting. This allows companies to keep their records in sync with the regulatory requirements while providing authorities with improved audit mechanisms without having to deal with a stack of physical documents. This fosters a more comprehensive improvement in corporate governance. The shift also results in significant cost reductions across various aspects. Companies eliminate costs linked to printing, storing, and handling tangible certificates, while simultaneously lowering administrative burdens concerning transfer processing and record keeping. The exemption from payment of stamp duty on the transfer and issuance of shares of securities reduces transaction costs for legitimate businesses[xii]. Additionally, by reducing these secondary tasks, it also decreases expenses associated with the labour needed to perform such tasks.
IMPACT ON PRIVATE COMPANIES
Dematerialisation necessitates acquiring an International Securities Identification Number (“ISIN”)[xiii]. This includes appointing a Registrar & Share Transfer Agent (“RTA”), drafting a tripartite agreement among the company, RTA, and depository (National Securities Depository Limited or Central Depository Services Limited), and providing essential documents such as Board Resolutions and financial statements. Upon completion of the review and payment of the fee, the Depository provides the ISIN. Shareholders are required to create a demat account, submit a dematerialisation request, and hand over the physical certificates to the RTA for verification. After validation, the dematerialized shares are added to the DEMAT account, simplifying securities management. Processing ISIN number issuance is a lengthy procedure for private companies and depositories. However, Companies face considerable hold-ups in acquiring the ISIN, caused by processing constraints within regulatory agencies. The process of arranging documents for dematerialisation is equally time-intensive for businesses.
Many private companies have not completed the demat process, even though the amendment’s deadline of 30 September 2024 has elapsed. Given that companies cannot issue securities until their securities are dematerialised, this hold-up now poses a significant problem. Companies that seek to raise capital by issuing securities are particularly impacted by this hold-up in the dematerialisation process. If this delay continues, it may lead to management challenges, especially for businesses with restricted resources and market visibility.
The restriction on shareholders who have not completed the dematerialisation of their holdings to sell their shares or subscribe for new shares greatly limits the company’s capacity to generate funds. Private companies thus currently face very few funding options because the dematerialization process is taking more time than anticipated. Due to this situation, these companies find themselves in an unpredictable situation[xiv].
These operational delays defeat the fundamental regulatory goals of improved transparency and market efficiency. The delays result in a contradictory scenario where the mechanism intended to enhance market access and transparency momentarily limits it. While mandatory dematerialisation of shares might impose extra compliance expenses on private companies, but in the long term, this initiative would enhance the business environment in India, as it would facilitate a quicker and more seamless process for any future issuance by private companies, share transfers, buybacks, rights issues, and so forth. Additionally, it should be noted that the MCA has explicitly exempted small companies from the scope of this mandatory dematerialisation requirement, which appears to be an attempt to relieve early-stage start-ups from the pressure of extra compliance expenses.
CHALLENGES FOR FOREIGN INVESTORS
Foreign investors such as venture capitalists, angel investors, and investment firms currently encounter the difficulty of establishing DEMAT accounts in India, which requires time and effort. It involves reviewing extensive documents and complying with rigorous regulatory requirements. In spite of these challenges, demat accounts are essential because they enhance transparency in the securities market and mitigate risks such as forgery or the loss of physical share certificates. After a company has dematerialized its shares, all subsequent transactions must be in demat format, meaning any shareholder without a demat account cannot engage in new transactions, including selling their investment, without having a demat account.
Nonetheless, difficulty arises for various reasons. To open a demat account, acquiring a PAN (Permanent Account Number) is essential, allowing foreign entities to continue the process. Furthermore, investors need to select a Depository Participant (DP), like a bank, to assist in managing their electronic shares. Finally, the documentation procedure is comprehensive, necessitating specific details, such as ownership information and adherence to Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations[xv].
A major challenge is the comprehensive documentation, which includes board resolutions, lists of directors, shareholding structures, and additional materials. This may be overwhelming, especially for individuals who are not well-versed in Indian regulations. Moreover, in contrast to other countries, India requires physical documents and wet signatures, posing difficulties for foreign companies that are used to relying on e-signatures. A frequent issue is that specific documents required by Indian regulators for identity and address verification might not be relevant or accessible to foreign investors, causing confusion and delays.
However, since this is a one-time requirement, it would offer far greater advantages to foreign investors than the complications involved, as it would grant benefits like the consolidation of investments in multiple private companies in India under a single demat account, a more streamlined and quicker process for share transfers when exiting investments, and reduced risks associated with the loss of share certificates typically seen with physical share certificates.
INTERNATIONAL LANDSCAPE OF DEMATERIALIZATION
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom’s approach to dematerializing securities significantly differs from India’s extensive framework. The UK has been considering dematerialization for several years but has adopted a more cautious, market-centric approach. Though the UK government announced its plan to dematerialize all securities issued by UK companies and traded on UK markets by 2025, this only applies to publicly traded securities and does not include private companies[xvi].
Since 1996, the UK’s CREST system has incorporated a well-established electronic settlement framework[xvii]. In contrast to India’s regulatory requirement, the UK adheres to a market-oriented approach, with the adoption of dematerialization happening spontaneously rather than by regulatory enforcement. This method illustrates the UK’s inclination to let market forces drive technological adoption, while ensuring regulatory supervision mainly for publicly listed companies.
The two frameworks demonstrate fundamentally distinct regulatory approaches regarding government intervention in corporate infrastructure. The strategy follows a targeted regulatory principle wherein government involvement is limited to areas of systemic significance, specifically public markets, where safeguarding investors and maintaining market integrity are crucial. Conversely, India’s Rule 9B represents a regulatory method that broadens governmental control into the private corporate sphere, treating dematerialization as a fundamental infrastructure necessity instead of just a mechanism for market efficiency.
Singapore
The dematerialization framework in Singapore operates around the Singapore Exchange Limited (SGX), primarily focusing on exchange-traded securities. The country has developed an advanced market infrastructure, incorporating co-trading connections with the Australian Stock Exchange, thereby improving regional market efficiency[xviii].
Nonetheless, Singapore’s strategy resembles that of other developed markets in its restriction to publicly traded securities while avoiding mandatory requirements for private companies. The regulatory structure highlights market-driven adoption instead of mandatory requirements for non-public entities, emphasizing the effectiveness of cross-border trading and market integration, unlike India’s broader domestic digitization strategy.
China
China’s securities infrastructure demonstrates a market-segmented approach. The China Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation Limited oversees distinct regulatory frameworks for inter-bank and exchange bond markets[xix], focusing regulatory schemes on publicly traded securities and government bonds instead of providing extensive oversight on private company securities, like that of India. China’s regulatory system focuses on tailored solutions for specific market segments instead of a universal approach for all types of companies.
India’s implementation of Rule 9B will likely serve as an example for other countries contemplating the comprehensive dematerialization of securities. This regulatory framework embodies India’s strategic decision to pursue swift, extensive change instead of gradual market development. The advantages or challenges of this framework may influence future global standards and regulatory perspectives regarding the balance between mandatory and voluntary adoption in the digitization of financial markets.
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMNETS AND PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
While the rules, along with Section 29 of the Act, do not explicitly mention an exact penalty, companies issuing securities without dematerialising them attract penalties under Section 450[xx] of the Act. The private company will not have the ability to issue or allocate any securities, and its security holders will not be permitted to transfer or apply for any security. Under Section 450, a company or its officer may face penalties of up to Rs. 10,000, along with an additional fine of Rs. 1,000 for each day the violation persists after the initial day.
Furthermore, if a private company intends to distribute bonus shares, issue or repurchase securities, or conduct a rights issue, it must ensure that the securities owned by its promoters, directors, and key managerial personnel (KMP) are dematerialized before undertaking the specified actions. Although the amendment does not forbid the possession of shares of a private company in physical form, any individual owning such shares in physical form must convert them into dematerialised form if they intend to transfer them post-DEMAT last date.
This measure ensures consistency in the DEMAT process for various transactions related to securities issued by private companies. The regulations align with a broader industry trend aimed at modernization and digitization within the financial sector. It aims to enhance the oversight of securities, boost transparency, safeguard investor interests, and align with the current trend, requiring non-small private company to adjust their operations accordingly to ensure compliance with regulatory standards and ensure the seamless execution of securities transactions.
CONCLUSION
The current amendment might be seen as an attempt to standardize the DEMAT of securities issued by both public and private firms and the rules align with a larger trend aimed at digitalization and modernization within the finance industry. Certainly, the goal is to enhance the oversight of securities, boost transparency, and conform to the current trend. However, adhering to the DEMAT procedure can prove to be an expensive endeavour for private companies. As the corporate environment increasingly adapts to growing regulatory requirements for transparency and efficiency, private companies must strike a balance between fulfilling these demands and safeguarding their shareholders’ interests. By executing thoughtfully and adhering to best practices, private companies can succeed in this evolving regulatory environment. Although this amendment has its own set of challenges and limitations and many of the rules detailed here may take time to implement, it represents individual commitments that ensure operational efficiency within India’s corporate environment. It is a timely and suitable measure to tackle the existing issues and guarantee efficient functioning without compromising investors’ interests or imposing an excessive load on the regulatory framework.
Notes:
[i] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=Z5zV%252FFCPufGJB7bT%252BHHK%252FQ%253D%253D&type=open (last visited June 17, 2025).
[ii] As per Section 2(85) of the Company’s Act, 2013, a small company is a non-public company with a paid-up share capital not exceeding Rs. 4 crores and a turnover not exceeding Rs. 40 crores.
[iii] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=yeQWfyzcqq0q1VEXRFUuTw%253D%253D&type=open (last visited June 17, 2025).
[iv] The Depositories Act, 1996, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 1996 (India).
[v] Securities and Exchange Board of India, https://www.sebi.gov.in/reports/reports/jan-2004/report-of-the-group-on-reduction-of-demat-charges_11921.html (last visited June 17, 2025).
[vi] The Companies Act, 1956, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
[vii] The Companies Act, 1956, § 68B, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
[viii] The Companies Act, 2013, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).
[ix] The Companies Act, 2013, § 29, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).
[x] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesProspectus3amdRule_10092018.pdf (last visited June 17, 2025).
[xi] The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).
[xii] Makarand Lele, The Shift to Dematerialization: Challenges in Protecting Shareholder Rights for Private Companies, Chartered Secretary, 93 (2024), https://www.icsi.edu/media/webmodules/CSJ/October-2024/21.pdf.
[xiii] Sharad Moudgal, Hardik Bhatia & Vinay Narayan, Dematerialisation Mandatory for Issue and Transfer of Securities of Unlisted Public Companies, KHAITAN & CO (Sept. 11, 2018), https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leadership/dematerialisation-mandatory-for-issue-and-transfer-of-securities-of-unlisted-public-companies.
[xiv] Chekkapally Prem Kumar Varma, Dematerialisation Mandates for Private Companies: Challenges and Compliance Ambiguities, CBFL NLU DELHI (Feb. 16, 2024), https://www.cbflnludelhi.in/post/dematerialisation-mandates-for-private-companies-challenges-and-compliance-ambiguities.
[xv] Sharad Moudgal, Hardik Bhatia & Vinay Narayan, Dematerialisation Mandatory for Issue and Transfer of Securities of Unlisted Public Companies, KHAITAN & CO (Sept. 11, 2018), https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leadership/dematerialisation-mandatory-for-issue-and-transfer-of-securities-of-unlisted-public-companies.
[xvi] Sam Tyfield, Dematerialisation of Securities in the UK: What It Means and Why It Matters, SHOOSMITHS (April 17, 2024), https://www.shoosmiths.com/insights/podcast/dematerialisation-of-securities-in-the-uk-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters.
[xvii] The Dematerialisation of Shares in the UK: Current Update & Assessment, ELTOMA GLOBAL, https://www.eltoma-global.com/knowledge-base/the-dematerialisation-of-shares-in-the-uk-current-update-assessment (last visited June 19, 2025).
[xviii] OECD, Securities Markets in Eurasia (2005), https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2005/11/securities-markets-in-eurasia_g1gh5bf5/9789264012233‑en.pdf.
[xix] Asian Development Bank, The Inter-Bank Bond Market in the People’s Republic of China: An ASEAN+3 Bond Market Guide (Aug. 2020), https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/630391/asean3-inter-bank-bond-market-prc.pdf.
[xx] The Companies Act, 2013, § 450, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).
***
