Oppression and mismanagement relief requires clean hands, bona fide pleadings, and proof before company law intervention is justified.

Relief in oppression and mismanagement proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 requires a bona fide petition by a proper person acting with clean hands. A member who participated in the impugned transactions, or who lacks candour, cannot invoke sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 as a disinterested complainant, and parallel civil and criminal proceedings on the same dispute may reinforce the lack of bona fides. The text also notes that allegations of stock discrepancy, diversion of funds, and irregular share allotment or transfer must be proved before Company Law Board intervention is justified; without such proof, appointment of an administrator is unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable when the petitioners had themselves participated in the impugned transactions and had already initiated parallel civil and criminal proceedings. (ii) Whether the allegations of oppression and mismanagement, including stock discrepancy, diversion of funds, and irregularity in share allotment and transfer, were established so as to justify appointment of an administrator by the Company Law Board.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable when the petitioners had themselves participated in the impugned transactions and had already initiated parallel civil and criminal proceedings.

Analysis: Relief in oppression and mismanagement proceedings is available only to a proper person acting bona fide for the benefit of the company. A member who has participated in the complained-of transactions, or whose conduct is tainted by lack of candour or want of bona fides, cannot invoke the jurisdiction as though he were a disinterested complainant. The existence of earlier civil and criminal proceedings on the same dispute further showed that the petition was not brought with clean hands and was not a genuine invocation of minority protection.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable at the instance of the respondents and they were not proper persons to maintain the action.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations of oppression and mismanagement, including stock discrepancy, diversion of funds, and irregularity in share allotment and transfer, were established so as to justify appointment of an administrator by the Company Law Board.

Analysis: The materials did not disclose any proved oppression or mismanagement. The commissioner's report did not support the allegation of stock shortage and instead indicated no material discrepancy. The alleged loans and advances were supported by accounts and were shown to have been transacted with the participation of one of the petitioners. The complaint regarding share issue and transfer did not establish a legal basis for CLB intervention, and the Board's democratic functioning could not be displaced without proof of statutory grounds. The essential ingredients for relief under sections 397 and 398 were therefore absent.

Conclusion: The findings of oppression and mismanagement could not be sustained and the appointment of the administrator was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Company Law Board was set aside, the company's management was restored to the Board of Directors, and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be granted unless oppression or mismanagement is proved on bona fide pleadings by a proper person acting with clean hands and the statutory conditions for interference are satisfied.

---