9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Allegations of collusion and conspiracy among respondents. 3. Determination of the company's ownership of the cinema house and its assets. 4. Oppression of minority shareholders by the majority. 5. Appropriateness of the appointment of an administrator. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956: The court examined whether the application filed under Sections 397 and 398 was appropriate. It was noted that the application was "unreal" and not suitable under these sections. The court emphasized that Section 397 is intended to protect minority shareholders from oppression by the majority and is not meant to resolve title disputes involving third parties. The court found that the application was improperly used to adjudicate a title dispute between the company and a third party, which is beyond the scope of Section 397. 2. Allegations of collusion and conspiracy among respondents: The petitioner alleged that Sm. Kanika Mukherji was set up by Bachraj Chamaria and other respondents to take wrongful possession of the cinema house and misappropriate the company's profits. However, the court found that these allegations were not substantiated by evidence. The learned judge rejected the charges of collusion and conspiracy, concluding that the petitioner's claims were based on mere suspicion rather than concrete proof. 3. Determination of the company's ownership of the cinema house and its assets: The court addressed the issue of whether the company was the lessee of the cinema house and the owner of the movables therein. It was established that Durgapada Mukherji had forcibly taken possession of the cinema house in 1957 and continued to run the business in his own name until his death. After his death, his widow, Kanika Mukherji, continued to run the business. The court found that the business conducted at the cinema house was originally that of Asoke Cinema Private Limited, but was taken over by a trespasser (Durgapada) and subsequently his widow. The court noted that the application under Section 397 was not the proper forum to decide such title disputes. 4. Oppression of minority shareholders by the majority: The petitioner claimed that the company's affairs were being conducted in a manner oppressive to him as a minority shareholder. The court, however, found no evidence of continuous, harsh, and wrongful conduct by the majority shareholders. The petitioner failed to prove that he was in a minority or that the majority was oppressing him. The court also highlighted that the petitioner had not exhausted other remedies available under the Companies Act before invoking Section 397. 5. Appropriateness of the appointment of an administrator: An administrator was appointed to take possession of the cinema house during the pendency of the application. The court found that this appointment was not justified under the circumstances. The learned judge's decision to appoint an administrator and make the order absolute was deemed an erroneous application of Section 397. The court concluded that the appointment of an administrator was inappropriate as the application itself was not maintainable under Section 397. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the court set aside the order of the lower court. The application under Sections 397 and 398 was dismissed. The administrator was directed to return possession to the party from whom it was received. The court clarified that this order was without prejudice to any further applications for winding up or orders under Sections 397 or 398 on proper materials and in the presence of proper parties. The appellant was awarded costs for both the appeal and the hearing in the lower court.
|
