TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Board rules removal of director illegal under Companies Act 1956, orders compensation for oppression</h1> The Board found the removal of the petitioner as director to be illegal due to noncompliance with the Companies Act, 1956. The company was directed to ... - Issues Involved:1. Alleged wrongful removal of the petitioner as a director.2. Alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement.3. Alleged violation of pollution control norms.4. Alleged siphoning off of funds and improper allotment of shares.Summary:1. Alleged Wrongful Removal of the Petitioner as a Director:The petitioner, holding not less than one-tenth of the total number of members of M/s. Nilesh Industrial Products Private Limited, filed a petition u/s 397/98 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging wrongful removal from the position of director. The petitioner argued that his removal was an act of oppression, especially given the company's quasi-partnership nature. He cited the case of Atmaram Modi v. ECL Agrotech Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 4 Comp.L.J.379 (CLB) to support his claim. The petitioner contended that he did not receive notices for the alleged three consecutive board meetings and was not given an opportunity to acquire qualifying shares. The respondents failed to provide evidence of notices or minutes for these meetings. The Board found the removal of the petitioner as director to be illegal due to noncompliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Alleged Acts of Oppression and Mismanagement:The petitioner alleged that the respondents committed acts of oppression by excluding him from the management and allotting 720 shares to their own group without offering any to him. The Board noted that the company was a family company in the guise of a partnership, and the exclusion of the petitioner from management was considered an act of oppression. The Board directed the company to compensate the petitioner with Rs. 1 lakh for the loss of his office as director and to purchase his shares at face value with 12% simple interest per annum from the date of investment.3. Alleged Violation of Pollution Control Norms:The petitioner alleged that the respondents flouted pollution control norms laid down by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), leading to the closure of the company's unit. The Board did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary focus was on the removal of the petitioner and the allotment of shares.4. Alleged Siphoning Off of Funds and Improper Allotment of Shares:The petitioner claimed that the respondents siphoned off funds and fraudulently allotted 720 shares to their own group to gain absolute control of the company. The Board found that the petitioner was not offered these shares and that the allotment was an act of oppression. The Board directed that the shares be purchased at face value with interest.Conclusion:The Board concluded that the removal of the petitioner as director was illegal and oppressive. The company was directed to compensate the petitioner and purchase his shares at a fair value. The petition was disposed of with the above directions, and liberty was granted to the parties to apply in case of any difficulty in implementing the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
