1979 (8) TMI 162 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of Section 204A of the Companies Act under Article 14.
2. Conformity of the Central Government's decision with the intent and purpose of the Companies Act.
3. Validity of the Central Government's reasons for refusing approval under Sections 204A and 314(1B) of the Companies Act.
4. Adequacy of the Central Government's exercise of discretion under the Companies Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 204A of the Companies Act under Article 14:

The petitioners argued that Section 204A of the Companies Act is discriminatory and unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that the discretionary power granted to the Central Government could be exercised arbitrarily, depending on personal whims rather than objective considerations. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the law is well-settled that an Act cannot be deemed unconstitutional merely because it grants discretion to the executive. The discretionary power is not inherently discriminatory, and the possibility of abuse does not negate the existence of the power. The legislature has provided sufficient guidelines for the Central Government to ensure that the terms and conditions of appointments are not prejudicial to the interests of the company, thereby making the provision valid under Article 14.

2. Conformity of the Central Government's decision with the intent and purpose of the Companies Act:

The petitioners contended that the Central Government's decision to reject the appointment of Shri J.H. Dalmia as an executive director was not in line with the true intent and purpose of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. The court examined the provisions of Sections 204A and 314(1B), which require the approval of both the company in a general meeting and the Central Government for such appointments. The court found that the shareholders had approved the appointment through a special resolution, and the only remaining requirement was the Central Government's approval. The court emphasized that the Central Government's discretion should be exercised lawfully and in accordance with the objective of preventing erstwhile managing agents or their associates from continuing their control over the company.

3. Validity of the Central Government's reasons for refusing approval under Sections 204A and 314(1B) of the Companies Act:

The Central Government cited two main reasons for refusing approval: the company already had a large number of executive directors from the same family, and it was not in the interests of shareholders or the public to have too many family members as executive directors with high salaries. The court found that these reasons were not supported by the factual record. The company had four executive directors from the same family since January 1970, with the approval of shareholders and the Central Government. The court noted that the Central Government had not provided any material evidence to justify its decision, particularly when one of the executive directors had resigned, creating a vacancy that the shareholders sought to fill with Shri J.H. Dalmia, who had the necessary qualifications and experience.

4. Adequacy of the Central Government's exercise of discretion under the Companies Act:

The court held that the Central Government had misdirected itself in law by not properly considering whether the proposed appointment of Shri J.H. Dalmia was a mere device to circumvent the provisions of the Act or whether it was genuinely in the interests of the company. The Central Government failed to focus on the relevant matter of whether the appointment was intended to continue control over the company by the former managing agents or their associates. The court concluded that the Central Government's decision was bad in law and needed to be reconsidered in light of the factual circumstances and the qualifications of Shri J.H. Dalmia.

Conclusion:

The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned letters from the Central Government were quashed. The court directed the Central Government to reconsider the petitioners' application in accordance with the observations made in the judgment and in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.