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>Dismissal of Petition for Insufficient Shareholding under Companies Act; Emphasis on Compliance and Genuine Intent</h1> The Company Law Board dismissed the petition under Section 399 of the Companies Act due to insufficient shareholding, as the petitioners collectively held ... - Issues:Maintainability of the petition under Section 237/397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 due to alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in M/s. Hicks Thermometers (India) Limited.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Maintainability of the petition under Section 399 of the Companies ActThe petitioners collectively held 8.72% of the subscribed and paid-up capital of the company, falling short of the required 10% under Section 399. However, the petitioners challenged the validity of the issue/allotment of 50,000 equity shares in 1995, which if declared invalid, would increase their holding to over 10%. The Company Law Board decided to examine this issue first to determine the maintainability of the petition.Issue 2: Compliance with statutory provisions for the issue of sharesThe petitioners alleged that the additional issue of shares was made surreptitiously and illegally for the benefit of the current management, violating Section 81 of the Companies Act. The company defended the issue, stating it was allotted to the managing director on a preferential basis with shareholder approval in the annual general meeting, following statutory provisions and for the company's benefit.Issue 3: Examination of purpose for preferential allotmentThe Board reviewed the legal requirements and motives behind the preferential allotment. The resolution for allotment was approved by the general body to meet long-term working capital needs, as banks were unable to provide the required funds. The allotment was based on a need for diversification and expansion of the company's activities, particularly in digital clinical thermometers, for the benefit of the company.Issue 4: Decision on the validity of the allotmentAfter considering the pleadings and arguments, the Board found that the legal requirements for further allotment of shares were met, and the allotment was made for a bona fide purpose to benefit the company. As the petitioners did not hold shares worth at least 10% of the subscribed capital, the petition was dismissed under Section 399. However, the petitioners were given the liberty to file a separate petition under Section 237 for investigation into the company's affairs.In conclusion, the Company Law Board dismissed the petition under Section 399 due to insufficient shareholding but allowed the petitioners to file a separate petition under Section 237 if desired, highlighting the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the bona fide nature of share issuances for the benefit of the company.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
