Share transmission and rights issue fairness in a family company can amount to oppression without proper proof and equal opportunity.

In a closely held family company, transmission of a deceased member's shares required proof of entitlement under the articles; absent a succession certificate, board approval or reliable evidence of family arrangement, the transmission and related rights shares were invalid. Excluding only one family member from a rights issue, while allotting the others and altering control, amounted to oppressive conduct because fairness required that his willingness to subscribe be ascertained before allotment. A continuing change in shareholding and its effect on shareholder rights was not barred by limitation. The register was to be rectified and consequential allotment-related relief granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transmission of 3,250 shares standing in the name of the deceased member to the third respondent, and the corresponding rights shares, were valid; (ii) whether the non-allotment of 21,000 rights shares to the first petitioner amounted to oppression; and (iii) whether the petitions were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the transmission of 3,250 shares standing in the name of the deceased member to the third respondent, and the corresponding rights shares, were valid.

Analysis: The dispute concerned transmission of shares in a family company after the death of a shareholder. The Board could recognise transmission only in accordance with the articles, on proof of entitlement or succession. No succession certificate was produced, no board resolution was placed on record to show due consideration under the articles, and no reliable material proved the alleged family arrangement. The transfer of the deceased member's shares to the third respondent, and the consequential rights shares issued on that footing, therefore lacked proper foundation.

Conclusion: The transmission in favour of the third respondent was invalid and oppressive, and the register had to be corrected by removing her name and transmitting the shares among the legal heirs proportionately, with consequential treatment of the rights shares.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-allotment of 21,000 rights shares to the first petitioner amounted to oppression.

Analysis: The rights issue was completed long after the offer period, and all other family members had been allotted shares except the first petitioner. In a closely held family company, fairness required that his willingness to subscribe be ascertained before allotment to others, especially when the allotments had the effect of creating a new majority in the rival group. Exclusion of only one family member from the rights issue, on these facts, amounted to oppressive conduct.

Conclusion: The non-allotment of 21,000 rights shares to the first petitioner was oppressive, and he was entitled to be given the option to acquire those shares at the same price as the other allottees.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitions were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The complaint related to a continuing change in the shareholding pattern and its ongoing effect on the rights of shareholders. Where the alleged oppression has a continuing impact, limitation does not defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The petitions were not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded in part, with relief granted for rectification of the share register and consequential allotment-related directions, without any order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a closely held family company, a change in shareholding that creates a new majority and is effected without proper proof of entitlement or fair opportunity to existing eligible members can constitute oppression, warranting rectification and consequential relief.

---