Oppression in a closely held company: selective share allotment was set aside, while transmission rights and standing were upheld.

Statutory standing under sections 397 and 398 was found to be satisfied where the second petitioner, as legal heir of the deceased shareholder, could seek transmission of shares on amendment of the succession certificate. Selective allotment of unallotted shares to one respondent, without demonstrated corporate necessity and in a manner that altered the existing shareholding balance, was treated as lacking probity and as oppressive in a closely held company, so the allotment was set aside and transmission was directed. Allegations of mismanagement, forfeiture, penalties and restraint were not supported by sufficient material, so those ancillary prayers were declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners satisfied the statutory threshold and were entitled to maintain the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) whether refusal to transmit the deceased member's shares and the impugned allotment of 750 shares in favour of the second respondent amounted to oppression warranting relief; (iii) whether the allegations of mismanagement and ancillary prayers for forfeiture, penalty and restraint were made out.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners satisfied the statutory threshold and were entitled to maintain the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The second petitioner, as legal heir of the deceased shareholder, was held entitled to seek transmission of the shares once the succession certificate was finally amended. The first petitioner's holding, together with the second petitioner's entitlement to the deceased member's shares, brought the petitioners within the membership and capital requirements. The proceedings could not be defeated by technical objections when the grievance related to oppression in the conduct of the company's affairs.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and the statutory requirement under section 399 was satisfied.

Issue (ii): whether refusal to transmit the deceased member's shares and the impugned allotment of 750 shares in favour of the second respondent amounted to oppression warranting relief.

Analysis: The transmission issue was found to be capable of redress because the succession certificate, as amended, authorized the second petitioner to have the shares transferred in her name. As to the further issue of shares, the board allotted the unallotted shares selectively to the second respondent without any demonstrated need for funds and in a manner that altered the existing shareholding balance. The allotment was treated as lacking probity and as being made for the benefit of the second respondent rather than the company, amounting to oppressive conduct in a closely held company.

Conclusion: The refusal to effect transmission was directed to be remedied, and the allotment of 750 shares in favour of the second respondent was set aside as oppressive.

Issue (iii): whether the allegations of mismanagement and ancillary prayers for forfeiture, penalty and restraint were made out.

Analysis: The allegations of mismanagement were not substantiated with sufficient material particulars. The prayers seeking forfeiture of shares, imposition of penalties and restraint from participating in the company's affairs were not supported by a legally sustainable basis on the evidence as presented.

Conclusion: Relief on the mismanagement-based ancillary prayers was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded substantially on the oppression complaint: the company was required to complete transmission of shares to the second petitioner, the impugned allotment was cancelled, and the register of members was to be corrected accordingly, while the remaining ancillary claims were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a petition for oppression and mismanagement in a closely held company, a selective issue of shares that disturbs the existing balance of membership and is made without demonstrated corporate necessity, and in breach of fair dealing and fiduciary standards, can constitute oppression and be set aside under the court's equitable powers; a duly amended succession certificate can also support transmission of the deceased member's shares for the purpose of statutory standing.

---