9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent-company is in the nature of a joint venture partnership between the petitioner and the third respondent. 2. Whether the issue of additional share capital in March 1988 suffers from any illegality and has been done by the respondents for their exclusive benefit and is an act of oppression. 3. Whether the company has undertaken construction of residential flats and if so, is it within the scope and authority conferred by the memorandum of association. 4. Whether the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to the interests of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned in the petition. 5. What relief to be granted in this petition. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Whether the respondent-company is in the nature of a joint venture partnership between the petitioner and the third respondent The court recast the issue to consider whether the respondent-company is in the nature of a joint venture partnership between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. It was undisputed that the shareholding between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was nearly equal initially, with each holding 45.5% of the shares. The petitioner argued that the company should be treated as a quasi-partnership due to the equal shareholding and the personal relationship involved. The court referred to the principles laid down in Ebrahimi v. Westbourne Galleries Ltd. and Hind Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Raghunathprasad Jhunjhunwalla, which outlined the conditions under which a company could be treated as a partnership. The court found that all four tests were satisfied: equal shareholding, formation based on a personal relationship involving mutual confidence, participation in business conduct, and restrictions on share transfer. Thus, the court held that the company in substance is a partnership and decided the issue in favor of the petitioner. Issue No. 2: Whether the issue of additional share capital in March 1988 suffers from any illegality and has been done by the respondents for their exclusive benefit and is an act of oppression The additional share capital was issued on 2-12-1987, not in March 1988. The petitioner was not offered the additional shares, which were allotted to respondent Nos. 2 to 6, significantly increasing their shareholding and reducing the petitioner to a minority. The court found that the issuance of additional shares was done without necessity and for the exclusive benefit of respondent No. 2's family, constituting an act of oppression. The court referred to the decisions in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. and Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd., noting that the issuance of shares per se reducing the petitioner to a minority is not necessarily oppressive unless done for an extraneous purpose. The court concluded that the additional share capital issuance was not justified and decided the issue against the respondents. Issue No. 3: Whether the company has undertaken construction of residential flats and if so, is it within the scope and authority conferred by the memorandum of association The court found that the company began constructing a residential complex, which was beyond the scope of its memorandum of association, which primarily allowed for the construction of a hotel. The permission for constructing residential flats was applied for in 1987, and the construction began before the court granted an injunction in 1988. The court noted that the construction of residential flats was not authorized by the company's objects, and this issue was decided against the respondents. Issue No. 4: Whether the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to the interests of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned in the petition The court considered various factors indicating oppression: unnecessary issuance of additional share capital, exclusion of the petitioner from share allotment, removal of the petitioner as director, unauthorized construction of residential flats, and lack of fairness and probity by the majority shareholders. The court found that these factors cumulatively showed that the affairs of the company were being conducted oppressively towards the petitioner. The court referred to the principles laid down in Shanti Prasad Jain's case, emphasizing that continuous acts of oppression must be shown. The court concluded that the petitioner's complaint was justified and decided the issue in favor of the petitioner. Issue No. 5: What relief to be granted in this petition The court found sufficient grounds to wind up the company but noted that such action would unfairly prejudice the petitioner. Instead, the court exercised its powers under section 402(b) of the Companies Act to order the purchase of the petitioner's shares by respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The court determined the value of the shares based on the market value of the company's land and directed respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioner within three months. In default, the petitioner could move the court for appropriate directions regarding the purchase of shares from respondent Nos. 2 to 6 at a price to be fixed by the court. The court allowed the company petition and disposed of it accordingly. Conclusion: The court concluded that the company was in substance a partnership, the issuance of additional shares was oppressive, the construction of residential flats was unauthorized, and the affairs of the company were conducted oppressively towards the petitioner. The court ordered the purchase of the petitioner's shares by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 at a determined value, providing relief to the petitioner under section 402(b) of the Companies Act. The company petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.
|
