Company Petition Dismissed: Pursue Settlement Breach in Civil Court, Claims Don't Meet Mismanagement Grievance Criteria.

The CLB dismissed the company petition, denying interim reliefs, and directed the petitioners to pursue remedies for the alleged breach of the settlement agreement in a competent civil court. The petitioners' claims failed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 397 and 398, as they pertained to past grievances, not ongoing oppression or mismanagement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Removal of the first petitioner as Managing Director.
2. Removal of the second petitioner as a director.
3. Non-payment of the balance amounts under the settlement agreement.
4. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Summary:

Issue 1: Removal of the First Petitioner as Managing Director
The petitioners alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Private Limited, particularly focusing on the removal of the first petitioner from the office of Managing Director. The respondents argued that the removal was accepted and formalized through a mutual settlement agreement dated 24.10.2003, which included the resignation of the first petitioner from the Board on 28.10.2003.

Issue 2: Removal of the Second Petitioner as Director
The second petitioner was removed from the post of director at an extraordinary general meeting held on 05.03.2004. The respondents justified this removal as being in accordance with the settlement agreement, which the petitioners allegedly breached by not transferring their shares and refusing to resign from the Board.

Issue 3: Non-payment of Balance Amounts
The settlement agreement stipulated that the petitioners would exit the Company and sell their shares for Rs. 135 lakhs in four installments. The respondents paid Rs. 50 lakhs but withheld the remaining Rs. 85 lakhs, claiming the petitioners breached the agreement by starting a competing business and refusing to transfer shares.

Issue 4: Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement u/s 397 and 398
The petitioners claimed that the respondents' actions constituted oppression and mismanagement. The respondents countered that the grievances were resolved through the settlement agreement and that any breach of this agreement should be addressed in a civil court, not u/s 397 and 398. The CLB found that the petitioners' grievances stemmed from the alleged breach of the settlement agreement and did not constitute ongoing acts of oppression or mismanagement. The CLB emphasized that the provisions of Sections 397 and 398 are preventive and not intended to remedy past acts, as supported by precedents like Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. and Palghat Exports Private Ltd. v. T.V. Chandran.

Conclusion:
The CLB dismissed the company petition and declined the interim reliefs, directing the petitioners to seek remedies for the alleged breach of the settlement agreement in a competent civil court. The petitioners' claims did not meet the requirements of Sections 397 and 398, as the alleged acts were past grievances related to the settlement agreement and not ongoing acts of oppression or mismanagement.

---