Oppression and mismanagement petitions: maintainability turns on pre-oppression shareholding, not just filing-date threshold.

Where a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleges that oppressive acts themselves reduced the petitioners below the Section 399 threshold, maintainability cannot be judged only by the shareholding on the date of filing; the Tribunal must consider whether the qualifying stake existed before the alleged oppression, and the challenge was accepted. The Limitation Act, 1963 applied to Tribunal proceedings, and the petition was held within time because the relevant cause of action arose from the alleged oppressive allotment and diminution of shareholding, filed within three years under Article 113. The dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of maintainability and merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 can be dismissed as not maintainable merely because the petitioners' shareholding stood reduced below the statutory threshold on the date of filing, where the reduction itself was alleged to be the result of oppression and mismanagement; (ii) whether the company petition was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 can be dismissed as not maintainable merely because the petitioners' shareholding stood reduced below the statutory threshold on the date of filing, where the reduction itself was alleged to be the result of oppression and mismanagement.

Analysis: The statutory requirement under Section 399(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 is to be examined in the context of the alleged cause of action. Where the grievance itself is that the petitioners were unlawfully brought below the qualifying shareholding by oppressive acts, the Tribunal must first determine whether the petitioners satisfied the threshold prior to the alleged oppression. The maintainability question cannot be divorced from the merits in such a case, because an automatic dismissal on the filing-date shareholding would deprive the aggrieved members of remedy and may defeat the very complaint of oppression.

Conclusion: The petition could not be rejected solely because the shareholding was below 10% on the date of filing; the issue of maintainability had to be examined along with the merits, and the appellants' contention was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the company petition was barred by limitation.

Analysis: By virtue of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings before the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. On the pleaded facts, the alleged oppressive allotment and consequent diminution of shareholding constituted the relevant accrual of the right to sue, and the petition was filed within three years from that date under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The petition was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the company petition was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination of maintainability and merits in accordance with the governing principle.

Ratio Decidendi: In a petition alleging oppression and mismanagement that itself caused the petitioner's shareholding to fall below the statutory threshold, maintainability under Section 399(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 must be tested by reference to the position before the alleged oppressive acts, and not only by the shareholding on the date of filing.

---