2004 (6) TMI 631 - Board - Companies Law

Court dismisses petition seeking government directors for M/S Kopran Limited due to commercial misjudgment.

Central Government Versus Kopran Limited

The court dismissed the petition seeking the appointment of government directors on the Board of M/S Kopran Limited. The court found that the loan of Rs. ... - Issues Involved:1. Allegation of financial mismanagement by loaning Rs. 78 crores to M/s Classic Credit Limited.2. Allegation of inadequate disclosure and violation of Section 628 of the Companies Act.3. Allegation of procedural violations of various provisions of the Companies Act.4. Request for appointment of government directors on the Board of the company.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allegation of financial mismanagement by loaning Rs. 78 crores to M/s Classic Credit Limited:The Central Government filed a petition under Sections 397/398 read with Sections 401/408 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the appointment of Government Directors on the Board of M/S Kopran Limited. The main ground was that the company had loaned Rs. 78 crores to M/s Classic Credit Limited, a group company of Ketan Parikh, who was involved in the 2001 stock market scam, resulting in a loss of Rs. 28 crores. The company had received back only Rs. 50 crores, and the balance cheque of Rs. 28 crores was dishonored. The respondents argued that the loan was given after assessing the creditworthiness of M/s Classic Credit, which had a good reputation and substantial net assets at the time. The court found that the Board of Directors had assessed the creditworthiness based on the balance sheet of M/s Classic Credit and the reputation of Ketan Parikh. The court concluded that the loan was a commercial misjudgment rather than an act of mismanagement, as the company had received back Rs. 50 crores and initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonored cheque.2. Allegation of inadequate disclosure and violation of Section 628 of the Companies Act:The Central Government alleged that the company had violated Section 628 of the Act by not adequately disclosing the grounds for its confidence in recovering the loan amount in its balance sheet for the year ended 31st March 2001. The court noted that the company had stated in its balance sheet that it was confident of recovering the amount, but did not disclose the specific grounds for this confidence. However, the court did not find this to be a significant violation warranting the appointment of government directors.3. Allegation of procedural violations of various provisions of the Companies Act:The Central Government pointed out several procedural violations of the Companies Act, including Sections 193, 224(8), 233(8), 257, 205, 270(3), 209(1), 203(3), 209(3)(b), 211(3A) read with (3C), Part 1 of Schedule VI read with Section 211 and 212. The respondents argued that these were procedural irregularities for which they had already filed compounding applications. The court agreed that these were procedural violations and did not amount to acts of mismanagement or oppression.4. Request for appointment of government directors on the Board of the company:The Central Government sought the appointment of government directors to safeguard the interests of the company, its shareholders, and the public interest. The court held that the appointment of government directors under Section 408 must be based on continuous acts of oppression or mismanagement. The court found that the acts complained of were either a single act of commercial misjudgment or procedural violations from the year 2000-2001. There were no continuous acts of oppression or mismanagement up to the date of the petition. The court also noted that the company had five independent directors and was a listed company. Therefore, the court did not find it necessary to appoint government directors.Conclusion:The court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Board of Directors of the company to take all steps available in law to recover the Rs. 28 crores from M/s Classic Credit Ltd. The court did not find sufficient grounds for the appointment of government directors, as the alleged acts were either commercial misjudgments or procedural violations, and there were no continuous acts of oppression or mismanagement.