Understanding Common Challenges with Physical Shares & IEPF
Why many cases get stuck, face repeated rejections, or become more complex over time.
How to use this page
This page explains common situations faced by investors holding physical shares or dealing with IEPF-related issues.
Each section highlights why the issue occurs, what usually goes wrong, and why structured handling matters. You don’t need to read everything , start with the section that matches your situation.
Signature mismatch and Dematerialisation deadlocks
When investors attempt to dematerialise physical shares after many years, their current signature often does not match the signature recorded at the time of original purchase.
Why this happens
-
Signatures naturally change over decades
-
Old company and RTA records are rarely updated
-
RTAs are required to rely strictly on records on file
What usually goes wrong
-
Demat requests are rejected immediately
-
Investors resubmit forms without knowing what needs correction
-
The shares remain legally owned, but practically unusable
How this is typically resolved (allowed to be detailed)
Here you can safely include:
-
Banker attestation route
-
Reference to ISR-1 and ISR-2
-
Importance of signature confirmation and correct submission
When shares and dividends move to the IEPF
If dividends remain unclaimed for seven consecutive years, the law requires companies to transfer both the dividends and the underlying shares to the IEPF.
Why this becomes complicated
-
The shareholder is no longer reflected as the on-record holder
-
Claims now involve both the company/RTA and government authorities
-
Documentation standards become stricter
What usually goes wrong
-
Investors discover the transfer too late
-
Incomplete records delay recovery
-
Multiple authorities are involved
What changes once shares reach IEPF
-
Recovery timelines increase
-
More formal verification is required
-
Errors compound if not handled carefully
Lost, damaged, or very old physical share certificates
Over time, physical share certificates are often misplaced, damaged, or rendered unreadable. Many investors discover this issue decades after purchase, usually when attempting to dematerialise or transfer their holdings.
Why this becomes complicated
Physical certificates are paper-based documents that were never designed for long-term storage across generations. Fire, moisture, frequent relocation, or simple wear and tear can make certificates unusable. In many cases, investors are unaware that even minor damage can invalidate a certificate for processing.
What usually goes wrong
Physical certificates are paper-based documents that were never designed for long-term storage across generations. Fire, moisture, frequent relocation, or simple wear and tear can make certificates unusable. In many cases, investors are unaware that even minor damage can invalidate a certificate for processing.
Why does this increase in complexity
Duplicate certificate issuance is a legal and procedural process, not an administrative one. Any inconsistency in records, folio details, or supporting documents can delay the case significantly, especially when combined with other issues like signature mismatch or outdated KYC.
Why Delaying Action Often Increases Complexity
Many investors postpone addressing physical share issues because the shares “still exist” on paper. However, time itself introduces new layers of complexity that are difficult to reverse later.
What changes over time
As years pass, investor records become increasingly outdated. Addresses change, signatures evolve, and company record-keeping standards are updated. What may have been a simple correction earlier can later require formal rectification.
Regulatory consequences
Unclaimed dividends accumulated over long periods often lead to the transfer of shares to the IEPF. Once this happens, recovery shifts from company-level coordination to a government-regulated process, with stricter documentation and verification requirements.
Structural takeaway
Delays do not keep a case static; they quietly convert manageable administrative issues into formal compliance cases.
Why repeated submissions without clarity don’t work
When a dematerialisation or claim request is rejected, many investors respond by resubmitting documents with minor changes, hoping the issue resolves itself.
How RTAs operate
RTAs do not provide step-by-step guidance or proactive correction. They evaluate submissions strictly against compliance requirements and communicate only the immediate reason for rejection, not the full underlying issue.
What usually happens
Each incorrect submission resets processing timelines and may introduce new objections. Over time, this creates a cycle of repeated rejections without meaningful progress.
Why structure matters
Cases move forward only when the root issue is identified first, and submissions are aligned precisely with what the RTA will accept, rather than through repeated attempts.
How these issues are usually addressed
Most physical share challenges are not resolved through repeated submissions, but by first identifying the exact compliance issue and then proceeding with the correct process.