Section 402 relief cannot support a new independent licence-fee claim in oppression and mismanagement proceedings.

Section 402 relief in oppression and mismanagement proceedings cannot be used to introduce a fresh, independent monetary claim unconnected with the original dispute. The Delhi High Court held that an application seeking deposit of licence fee for premises allegedly occupied by non-parties was not maintainable because the claim arose outside the original controversy over control and management of the company; that application was dismissed with costs. Separately, the Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay and amendment in the pending matter, granting procedural relief while rejecting the substantive ancillary claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application in proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking deposit of licence fee in respect of premises allegedly occupied by non-parties to the original company dispute, was maintainable as an ancillary or implementing relief. (ii) Whether the applications for condonation of delay and amendment were to be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether an application in proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking deposit of licence fee in respect of premises allegedly occupied by non-parties to the original company dispute, was maintainable as an ancillary or implementing relief.

Analysis: Relief under section 402 is available to implement or give effect to orders passed in oppression and mismanagement proceedings, but it cannot be used to introduce a fresh and unconnected dispute. The claim for licence fee concerned persons who were not parties to the original petition and arose from a relationship that had, at least prima facie, been treated differently in later proceedings. The Court held that the claim was independent of the original controversy between the family members concerning control and management of the company, and that such a dispute could not survive indefinitely so as to support a new monetary claim unrelated to the petition.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was dismissed with costs.

Issue (ii): Whether the applications for condonation of delay and amendment were to be allowed.

Analysis: These applications were moved under the Company Court Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure for procedural relief in the pending matter.

Conclusion: The applications were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The substantive company application failed for want of maintainability, while the procedural applications for delay condonation and amendment succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 402 cannot be invoked to pursue a new and independent claim unconnected with the original oppression and mismanagement dispute, especially where the persons affected were not parties to that petition.

---