9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 385 - SC - Companies LawWhether the allotment of additional shares was an act of oppression on his part? Whether the shares were issued bona fide and for the benefit of the company? Whether the right has been exercised bona fide and in the interests of the company? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Even the Company Law Board found that the allotment of additional shares by Ramanujam to himself was an act of oppression on his part. The Company Law Board drew this conclusion solely for the reason that no offer had been made to the majority shareholders regarding issue of further share capital. The High Court accepted the finding of oppression. However, it placed it on a much broader base by taking into consideration various other factors. The High Court s finding is based on a much stronger footing. In fact, the High Court has gone on to conclude that Ramanujam has played a fraud on the minority shareholders by manipulating the allotment of shares in his favour. We find no reason to differ with the finding of the High Court. No merit in the contention that the petition under sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, filed by the Prathapan and his wife before the Company Law Board was not maintainable. No merit in the argument that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 10F of the Companies Act while deciding the appeal. The relief granted by the High Court was a proper relief in the facts of the case.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of allotment of equity shares of the Company in favor of Ramanujam. 2. Effect of not obtaining permission of the Reserve Bank of India under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) by Prathapan regarding transfer of shares. 3. Scope of power of the High Court in an appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act. 4. Relief to be granted to a majority shareholder who by an act of oppression on the part of management of the company is converted into a minority shareholder. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Allotment of Equity Shares The main issue revolves around the allotment of 6865 equity shares to Ramanujam in a meeting of the Board of Directors alleged to have been held on 24th October 1994, and further 9800 equity shares on 26th March 1997. Prathapan challenged these allotments as acts of oppression. The following questions were considered: (a) Existence of Board Meeting on 24th October 1994: - The appellants presented a photocopy of the minutes of the alleged meeting, showing Suresh Babu's presence. However, Suresh Babu denied attending any Board meetings, and there was no evidence of a notice convening the meeting as required by Article 36 of the Articles of Association. - The absence of a log book for recording directors' attendance further invalidated the claim of a meeting. The court concluded that the alleged meeting did not take place, making the allotment of shares unauthorized and invalid. (b) Validity of the Meeting: - Given that no meeting took place, the question of its validity does not arise. Suresh Babu's absence would have rendered any such meeting invalid. (c) Necessity of Raising Share Capital: - The balance sheets up to 31st March 1993 showed no substantial investments. The sudden appearance of Rs. 6,86,500 in the balance sheet for the year ending 31st March 1994 was unexplained. The court found no evidence of a need for additional funds, concluding that the allotment was a strategy by Ramanujam to gain control of the company. (d) Bona Fide Act in the Interest of the Company: - Directors owe a fiduciary duty to issue shares for a proper purpose. The court found that the allotment of shares to Ramanujam was not bona fide and was solely for his personal gain, constituting an act of oppression. The court referenced several precedents, including Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver and Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd., emphasizing that directors must act in good faith and for the benefit of the company. The court concluded that the allotment of shares to Ramanujam was fraudulent and should be set aside. Issue 2: Effect of Not Obtaining RBI Permission under FERA The court held that permission from the Reserve Bank of India under FERA could be obtained ex post facto, as established in LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd.. The subsequent repeal of FERA and its replacement by FEMA, which does not require such permission, further supported this view. Regarding locus standi, the court cited Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd. v. A. Nageshwara Rao and other cases, concluding that the validity of a petition is judged based on the facts at the time of its presentation. Since Prathapan and his wife were registered shareholders at the time of filing the petition, they had the requisite locus standi. Issue 3: Scope of Power of High Court in Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act Section 10F allows appeals on questions of law. The court held that if a finding of fact is perverse and based on no evidence, it can be set aside in appeal. The High Court's decision to delve deeper into the matter was justified, given the Company Law Board's cursory treatment of the issues. Issue 4: Relief The court emphasized that relief depends on the facts of each case. Given the manifestly wrongful actions of Ramanujam, the only appropriate relief was to undo the advantage he gained through manipulation and fraud. The High Court's decision to set aside the allotment of shares to Ramanujam was upheld, as it was the proper relief in the circumstances. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court's judgment, and ordered the setting aside of the allotment of additional shares to Ramanujam. The court emphasized that allowing Ramanujam to buy Prathapan's shares would reward the wrongdoer and penalize the oppressed party. The relief granted by the High Court was deemed appropriate and justified.
|
