1999 (12) TMI 874 - Board - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification of the first petitioner as a director under Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Legality of the extraordinary general meeting held on April 21, 1998, and the resolutions passed therein, including the appointment of two employee directors and the second respondent as managing director.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disqualification of the First Petitioner as a Director:
The second respondent informed the first petitioner that he had ceased to be a director/managing director by virtue of Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the grounds of being declared an undischarged insolvent by the High Court of Madras. However, it was revealed that the insolvency petition against the first petitioner had been dismissed by the High Court, a fact known to the respondent. The judgment noted that there was no argument from the respondents on this issue, and a certificate from an advocate confirmed the dismissal of the insolvency petition. Consequently, the first petitioner did not attract the provisions of Section 274(b) and, as per the company's articles, would continue to function as the managing director for life.

2. Legality of the Extraordinary General Meeting and Resolutions Passed:
The extraordinary general meeting held on April 21, 1998, was convened to transact various businesses, including appointing the second respondent as managing director and two employees as directors. The petitioners argued that the meeting was convened in violation of the Companies Act and that the induction of outsiders into a family company without the consent of all family shareholders constituted an act of oppression. The respondents countered that proper notices were issued, and any irregularities could be rectified in subsequent meetings.

The judgment emphasized that in a Section 397/398 petition, the focus is on whether the actions constitute oppression rather than their legality. Given the family nature of the company and the parity in the board with two directors from each group, any disturbance resulting in the marginalization of one group was deemed an act of oppression. The appointment of two additional directors was thus considered oppressive. Additionally, the appointment of the second respondent as managing director was invalidated since the first petitioner was not disqualified and the company did not carry on any business.

Additional Considerations:
The judgment acknowledged the potential for deadlock in the board due to equal representation from both groups. To protect the company's interests, especially concerning its subsidiary, Coromandel Indag Products India Limited, options were provided to the petitioners. They could either opt for the distribution/transfer of the company's 70% shares in the subsidiary to the individual petitioners at 14% each or choose to sell their shares to the respondents/company based on an independent valuation. These options were to be exercised within 30 days, and once exercised, the directions invalidating the resolutions from the extraordinary general meeting would lapse.

Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and liberty to apply was given to both parties. The judgment provided a balanced resolution aimed at protecting the interests of the company and its subsidiary while addressing the acts of oppression identified in the petition.