9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of Resolution No. 10. 2. Legality and validity of Resolution No. 11. 3. Legality and validity of Resolution No. 12. 4. Allegations of fund diversion and mismanagement. 5. Compliance with statutory and regulatory guidelines. 6. Procedural propriety of the adjourned AGM. 7. Impact of family disputes on company management. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Validity of Resolution No. 10: The court examined whether the applicant-company could change the purpose of the funds raised through Partly Convertible Debentures (PCDs) from the original projects to a new beer project. The applicant-company had obtained approval from financial institutions like ICICI and SEBI for this change. The court noted that the overwhelming majority of shareholders (87% including disputed shares) approved the resolution. The court found that the company had complied with necessary statutory approvals and guidelines, and there was no legal impediment to implementing the resolution. The contention that the funds were not kept in a separate account as required under Section 73(3) of the Companies Act was dismissed, as the funds were raised through a letter of offer to existing shareholders, not a public prospectus. 2. Legality and Validity of Resolution No. 11: Resolution No. 11 pertained to the issuance of shares to NRIs/OCBs. The court noted that this issuance was necessary to comply with conditions imposed by the Government of India for the beer project. The resolution received overwhelming shareholder support (89.66% including disputed shares). The court found that the issuance of shares to NRIs/OCBs was in line with SEBI guidelines and did not violate any statutory provisions. The objection that this would dilute the holdings of minority shareholders was dismissed as the issuance was necessary for the project's implementation and had received requisite approvals. 3. Legality and Validity of Resolution No. 12: Resolution No. 12 involved issuing shares to the promoters' group to increase their stake to 51%. The court found that the adjournment of the AGM to consider this resolution was proper and in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions. The resolution was passed with 89.66% shareholder approval (including disputed shares). The court held that the issuance of shares to the promoters was in line with the liberalization policy and SEBI guidelines, which allow promoters to increase their stake up to 75%. The objections regarding family disputes and procedural irregularities were dismissed as unsubstantiated. 4. Allegations of Fund Diversion and Mismanagement: The plaintiffs alleged that the company diverted funds raised for specific projects to the beer project without proper approval. The court noted that the company had obtained necessary approvals from financial institutions and regulatory bodies for the change in fund utilization. The court dismissed the allegations of mismanagement, stating that the deployment of funds was regular and in compliance with statutory requirements. 5. Compliance with Statutory and Regulatory Guidelines: The court examined whether the company complied with statutory and regulatory guidelines in passing the resolutions. It found that the company had obtained necessary approvals from financial institutions, SEBI, and RBI. The resolutions were passed with overwhelming shareholder support, and there was no violation of statutory provisions. The court dismissed the objections regarding non-compliance with guidelines as unsubstantiated. 6. Procedural Propriety of the Adjourned AGM: The plaintiffs contended that the adjournment of the AGM to consider Resolution No. 12 was improper. The court found that the adjournment was in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions and was approved by the shareholders present at the meeting. The court dismissed the objections regarding procedural impropriety, stating that the adjournment and subsequent meeting were conducted properly. 7. Impact of Family Disputes on Company Management: The plaintiffs argued that family disputes between the Kothari family members affected the company's management. The court found that the disputes did not impact the validity of the resolutions. The resolutions were passed with overwhelming shareholder support, and the objections raised by the plaintiffs were motivated by personal interests rather than the company's welfare. The court dismissed the objections regarding family disputes as irrelevant to the legality of the resolutions. Conclusion: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' applications for injunctions and allowed the implementation of Resolution Nos. 10, 11, and 12. The court found that the resolutions were passed with overwhelming shareholder support, complied with statutory and regulatory guidelines, and there was no legal impediment to their implementation. The objections raised by the plaintiffs were found to be unsubstantiated and motivated by personal interests. The court permitted the applicant-company to implement the resolutions as prayed for.
|
