9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the resolution passed on 5th December, 1977, for issuing further shares. 2. Shifting of the registered office from Jalpaiguri to Siliguri. 3. Alleged private sales and misapplication of the sale proceeds of tea. 4. Non-receipt of notice for the impugned meeting. 5. Non-publication of the closure of the share register. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Resolution for Issuing Further Shares: The primary issue was whether the resolution passed on 5th December, 1977, to issue 15,000 equity shares of Rs. 20 each was valid under section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner argued that the resolution was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court noted that the notice and explanatory note did not provide sufficient details about the persons to whom the shares would be allotted or the manner of the issue. The court held that the resolution was invalid because it did not meet the requirements of section 81(1A), which mandates specific information to be provided to shareholders to make an informed decision. The court emphasized that the resolution should have indicated the proposed allottees or the manner of allotment to ensure fair play in corporate management. 2. Shifting of the Registered Office: The petitioner challenged the shifting of the registered office from Jalpaiguri to Siliguri. The learned judge did not accept the grievance regarding the shifting of the registered office. The court found that the procedural requirements for shifting the office were met, and there was no violation of section 146 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court noted that the publication about the shifting of the registered office was made in newspapers, and there was no evidence to suggest that the shifting was done with any mala fide intent. 3. Alleged Private Sales and Misapplication of Sale Proceeds: The petitioner alleged private sales and misapplication of the sale proceeds of tea. However, the learned judge did not deal with these allegations specifically. The court noted that the allegations were not clearly established and lacked sufficient evidence. The court found that the particulars of district average sales were produced, and the allegations did not warrant any interference under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. Non-receipt of Notice for the Impugned Meeting: The petitioner contended that they did not receive the notice for the annual general meeting held on 5th December, 1977. The learned judge, based on the certificate of posting, presumed that the notice was duly sent and received. The court observed that the respondent had been taking an interest in the company's affairs through Manish Chandra Mitra, and there was a preponderance of facts indicating that the notice might have been received. The court held that the learned judge was entitled to draw the presumption and there was no error in this factual finding. 5. Non-publication of the Closure of the Share Register: The court observed that the non-publication of the closure of the share register violated section 154 of the Companies Act, 1956. However, the court noted that this violation did not invalidate the resolution but was a factor to consider in assessing the bona fides of the company's actions. The court found that the non-publication indicated a lack of transparency and fairness in the company's conduct. Conclusion: The appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed. The court confirmed the order of the learned trial judge, holding that the resolution for issuing further shares was invalid under section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956. The board of directors was directed to call a fresh annual general meeting in accordance with the law, without considering the increased share capital. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Separate Judgments: Suhas Chandra Sen, J., agreed with the judgment delivered by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
|
