1974 (9) TMI 125 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict of interest between holding and subsidiary company management.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court over the subsidiary company.
3. Validity of the arrangement sanctioned by the Court under Section 391 of the Companies Act.
4. Authority of R.P. Anand to file the appeal.
5. Appealability of the order dated February 7, 1974.
6. Merits of the appeal against the order dated February 7, 1974.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict of Interest Between Holding and Subsidiary Company Management:
The Court identified a conflict of interest between the management of the holding company, Anand Finance Private Limited, and its subsidiary, Mazda Theatres Private Limited, due to the Court's control over the holding company's management in the interests of its creditors. This conflict arose because the Anand family, which controlled both companies, had to relinquish control to a new Board of Directors appointed by the Court to manage the holding company. Consequently, the subsidiary's management also saw changes, with new directors appointed to represent the creditors' interests.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court Over the Subsidiary Company:
The subsidiary initially objected to the Court's territorial jurisdiction but later did not press this objection. The Court ruled that the subsidiary had waived its objection to territorial jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings without raising the issue. The Court emphasized that objections to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, unlike objections to subject-matter jurisdiction, which are inherent and cannot be waived.

3. Validity of the Arrangement Sanctioned by the Court Under Section 391 of the Companies Act:
The arrangement sanctioned by the Court on July 29, 1968, included the management of both the holding and subsidiary companies. The Court held that even though a formal meeting of the subsidiary's members was not called, the written consent of more than 90% of the members and their acquiescence in the arrangement sufficed to meet the requirements of Section 391. The Court noted that technical non-compliance with Section 391 could be cured by the substantial consent and acquiescence of the members.

4. Authority of R.P. Anand to File the Appeal:
The Court found that R.P. Anand did not have the authority to file the appeal on behalf of the subsidiary. The resolution appointing him as General Manager was void due to non-compliance with Section 289 of the Companies Act. Moreover, the order dated July 29, 1968, which appointed the Board of Directors of the holding company as the Board of Directors of the subsidiary, was not appealed against and thus remained valid.

5. Appealability of the Order Dated February 7, 1974:
The Court ruled that the order dated February 7, 1974, was appealable as it affected the rights and liabilities of the parties involved. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand, which held that interlocutory orders affecting rights or liabilities are appealable.

6. Merits of the Appeal Against the Order Dated February 7, 1974:
The Court dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:
- The order dated July 29, 1968, was not a nullity and had been substantially complied with.
- The arrangement had not worked itself out and continued to be necessary for the proper working of the holding company's debt repayment plan.
- The order under appeal was within the Court's powers under Section 392 of the Companies Act to ensure the arrangement's effectiveness.
The Court concluded that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it without any order as to costs.