1998 (7) TMI 503 - HC - Companies Law

Court upholds Company Law Board decision on share transfer dispute, grants relief under Companies Act

The High Court upheld the Company Law Board's decision directing the company to register shares transferred to respondents from Deccan Enterprises Private ... Dividends - Failure to distribute dividends within time prescribed, Reliefs -Power of Court to grant relief in certain cases, Issues Involved:1. Transfer of shares and validity of board resolutions.2. Non-payment of dividends during the period of transfer dispute.3. Liability for interest on unpaid dividends.4. Relief from prosecution under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956.Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer of Shares and Validity of Board Resolutions:The respondents applied for the transfer of shares from Deccan Enterprises Private Limited to their names. The company initially refused the transfer, citing that the board resolution dated 15-3-1986 did not authorize the transfer. Subsequent attempts by the respondents included presenting a resolution dated 5-5-1989, which the company also found inadequate under Section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company sought legal advice and ultimately refused the transfer multiple times, citing invalid transfer deeds under Section 108(1A) of the Act. The respondents then appealed to the Company Law Board (CLB), which directed the company to register the shares. This decision was upheld by the High Court, and the shares were registered in February 1998.2. Non-Payment of Dividends During the Period of Transfer Dispute:The company did not pay dividends on the disputed shares from March 1990 to February 1998, holding the amounts in abeyance as per Section 205A of the Act. Upon registration of the shares, the dividends were paid to the respondents. The respondents later claimed interest on the unpaid dividends, alleging deliberate withholding by the company.3. Liability for Interest on Unpaid Dividends:The respondents demanded compound interest at 2% per month for the unpaid dividends. They threatened prosecution under Section 207 of the Act if the amount was not paid within seven days. The petitioners sought relief from this liability, arguing that they acted reasonably and in good faith based on legal advice.4. Relief from Prosecution Under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956:The respondents filed a counterclaim, alleging personal animosity and a conspiracy to harass them. They argued that the company's refusal to transfer shares was mala fide and that the legal opinions obtained lacked credibility. The court, however, found no substance in the allegations of personal animosity affecting the company's decisions. It noted that the company had acted on the advice of a Senior Counsel and a Firm of Solicitors, which, although later found incorrect, indicated a lack of mala fides.The court also addressed the applicability of Section 206A, which mandates holding dividends in abeyance pending share transfer registration. The respondents argued that this section did not apply as the company had rejected the transfer applications. The court, however, found that the company's actions were based on legal advice and thus lacked mala fides.Conclusion:The court concluded that while the company's non-payment of dividends to the transferors was unjustified, the respondents could not claim dividends until the shares were registered in their names. The company's reliance on legal advice demonstrated bona fides, and thus, the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 633 of the Act. However, the court conditioned this relief on the payment of 12% simple interest on the unpaid dividends from 1990 to 1998, along with Rs. 10,000 in costs to the respondents. If these payments were made within one month, the petitioners would be relieved of liability under Section 207.