2015 (8) TMI 189 - HC - Companies Law

Fraudulent transfer of shares Non-compliance of provisions Held that - transfer of 536 shares was made purportedly as part of family arrangement, Annual Report of Respondent company of 2003-2004 reflects this transfer and shows names of all transferees Appellants had to show that such alleged transfer was not only oppressive act but that it was just and equitable to wind up company on account of such act Appellants failed to make out any such case As per Article 10 of article of association, shares may be transfered by member to another member or person in any of the enumerated relationships with transferor member It was admitted position that transferees of these 536 shares was brothers of deceased and fall within this clause Therefore transfers cannot be said to be in contravention of Articles. Representation on board of directors CLB directed adequate representation of appellant on board of directors on Appellants claim of having 46.71% shareholders Held that - Whether or not Appellants hold over 46% shareholding in Respondent company, was matter of serious dispute between parties If 536 shares of Respondent company was treated as correctly transferred, total shareholding of Appellants comes to about 26.46% Therefore direction that adequate representation should be given to Appellants was clearly impermissible and cannot be sustained Cross-objections allowed Impugned order giving adequate representation to Appellants set-aside Decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the share transfer of 536 shares from the late Shankarrao to Respondent Nos. 6 to 9.
2. Alleged procedural defects in the Annual General Meetings (AGMs) and Board Meetings.
3. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. The nature of the first Respondent company as a quasi-partnership.
5. Adequate representation of the Appellants in the management of the first Respondent company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Share Transfer:
The Appellants claimed that the transfer of 536 shares from the late Shankarrao to Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 was fraudulent, involving forged documents and non-compliance with Section 108 of the Companies Act. The CLB rejected this contention, stating that the issue could not be adjudicated under Sections 397 and 398 but rather required a rectification application under Section 111. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the transfer was purportedly part of a family arrangement during Shankarrao's lifetime, backed by transfer deeds, board resolutions, and reflected in the company's records. The court emphasized that mere procedural irregularities could not constitute oppression without showing a lack of probity or fair dealing.

2. Procedural Defects in AGMs and Board Meetings:
The Appellants alleged that AGMs were not properly convened and that there were irregularities in the appointment of directors. The CLB found no merit in these allegations, and the High Court agreed, noting that procedural defects alone do not amount to oppression unless they result in unfair prejudice to the shareholders' proprietary rights.

3. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The Appellants argued that the affairs of the first Respondent company were conducted oppressively and prejudicially. The CLB found no evidence of harsh, burdensome, or wrongful conduct by the Respondents. The High Court concurred, stating that the Appellants failed to demonstrate that the alleged acts were oppressive or that it was just and equitable to wind up the company based on these acts.

4. Quasi-Partnership Nature of the Company:
The CLB initially found that the first Respondent company was a quasi-partnership, but this was later amended to reflect that the Appellants claimed it to be so. The Respondents contested this, arguing that the company's history of share transfers and changes in management contradicted the quasi-partnership claim. The High Court reviewed the company's history and found no evidence of mutual confidence or personal relationships characteristic of a quasi-partnership. It concluded that the CLB's finding of a quasi-partnership was unsustainable and contrary to the record.

5. Adequate Representation in Management:
The CLB directed that the Appellants be given adequate representation in the company's management based on their claimed 46.71% shareholding. The High Court found this direction vague and unsupported by the record, noting that the Appellants' actual shareholding was disputed and likely lower if the 536 shares were validly transferred. The court held that the CLB's direction exhibited a perverse approach and lacked clarity on what constituted adequate representation.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the Company Appeal and allowed the Respondents' cross-objections, setting aside the CLB's findings regarding the quasi-partnership nature of the company and the direction for adequate representation of the Appellants in management. The court emphasized the need for clear evidence and proper legal procedures to substantiate claims of oppression, mismanagement, and share transfer irregularities.

← Previous Next →