9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Validity of the purported transfer of company assets (two buses and route permits) to the sixth respondent. 3. Applicability of section 402(a) and (g) of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. Relevance of the decision in Sheth Mohanlal Ganpatram v. Sayaji Jubilee Cotton and Jute Mills Co. Ltd. 5. Applicability of section 290 of the Companies Act, 1956. Summary: Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement: The petitioners filed C.P. No. 18 of 1979 u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement. They sought a declaration that respondents Nos. 2, 4, and 5 were not shareholders or directors of the first respondent company, that the second respondent was not the managing director, and that the transfer of two buses and their route permits to the sixth respondent was illegal. They also requested the appointment of an administrator to manage the company's affairs. The company judge found that the records of the company were suppressed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the sale of the buses was not a valid transfer, and there was no evidence of the third respondent's appointment as managing director. Validity of the Purported Transfer: The principal submission in O.S.A. No. 61 of 1983 was that the company court lacked the power to set aside the transfer of the buses and route permits u/s 397 and 398 of the Act. The court found that the alleged transfer was non est in law, meaning the title to the buses and route permits remained with the company. The court noted discrepancies and lack of evidence regarding the transfer, including the absence of a board resolution and the undervaluation of the assets. Applicability of Section 402(a) and (g): The court held that since the transfer was non est, the applicability of clauses (e), (f), or (g) of section 402 did not arise. The relief sought aimed to revive the company, aligning with the objective of sections 397 and 398 to end the matters complained of. Relevance of Sheth Mohanlal Ganpatram Case: The court distinguished the present case from Sheth Mohanlal Ganpatram v. Sayaji Jubilee Cotton and Jute Mills Co. Ltd., noting that the latter involved a genuine sale of assets after due process, whereas the present case lacked such evidence and involved usurpation of office. The court concluded that the decision in Sheth Mohanlal Ganpatram's case did not apply. Applicability of Section 290: Section 290 of the Act, which validates acts done by a person as a director despite later discovering defects in their appointment, was deemed inapplicable. The court found that there was a fraudulent usurpation of authority, not merely a defect or disqualification in appointment. Conclusion: The court affirmed the findings of oppression and mismanagement, dismissed the appeals, and upheld the order of the company judge. The reliefs under sections 397 and 398 were granted to revive the company and end the oppressive conduct. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
