Share Transfer Ruling Upheld

The Board found in favor of the respondents, ruling that the alleged wrongful transmission of shares was in accordance with the company's articles of association and did not constitute oppression or mismanagement. The accusations of siphoning off funds and employing bogus employees were deemed unsubstantiated and motivated, with the petitioner's ulterior motive for seeking relief under sections 397/398 highlighted. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing that such relief should aim to end acts of oppression and mismanagement, not serve personal interests.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged wrongful transmission of shares.
2. Alleged siphoning off of funds.
3. Alleged employment of bogus and benami employees.
4. Alleged mismanagement and oppression in the affairs of the company.

Summary:

1. Alleged Wrongful Transmission of Shares:
The petitioner, a member of the Thakur group holding 20% shares, alleged that the second respondent engineered the wrongful transmission of 660 shares held by the deceased head of the Bhavnani group, suppressing a will that bequeathed the shares to Reshma Bakshi. The petitioner claimed this was done without proper agenda and against the protest of some directors. However, the respondents argued that the deceased died intestate, and the shares were transmitted to his legal heirs as per Article 44 of the articles of association. The Board found no evidence of the alleged will and concluded that the transmission was in accordance with the articles of association, thus not constituting oppression or mismanagement.

2. Alleged Siphoning Off of Funds:
The petitioner accused the second and third respondents of siphoning off company funds through fictitious employees and other means, claiming they pocketed significant amounts monthly. The respondents countered that the managing director, the petitioner's brother, would have known of any such siphoning, and no such complaints were made by him. The Board noted the lack of specific details and the absence of the managing director as a party to the proceedings, concluding that the allegations were unsubstantiated and motivated.

3. Alleged Employment of Bogus and Benami Employees:
The petitioner alleged that salaries were being drawn for non-existent employees and drivers, with the funds being pocketed by the respondents. The respondents explained that the company reimbursed directors for drivers' salaries to avoid higher costs of direct employment. The Board found this practice common and noted that the petitioner's own expenses were covered by the company, indicating a lack of bona fide in his claims.

4. Alleged Mismanagement and Oppression:
The petitioner sought various reliefs, including the appointment of a special officer and investigation into the company's affairs. The respondents argued that the petition was motivated by the petitioner's desire for a directorship, as evidenced by his previous demands for a functional role and complaints about not being made a director. The Board observed that the petition targeted only the second respondent, leaving out the managing director from the petitioner's group, indicating an ulterior motive. The Board emphasized that relief u/s 397/398 should aim to end acts of oppression/mismanagement, not serve oblique purposes, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

---