2002 (12) TMI 642 - Board - Companies Law

Court orders bidding process for parties in dispute, no oppression or mismanagement proven.

Tenneco Mauritius Limited Versus Bangalore Union Services Limited, Dr. V. Krishnamurthy, K. Jayakar and Hydraulics Private Limited AND Bangalore Union Services Limited And Dr. V. Krishnamurthy Versus Tenneco Mauritius Limited, Hari Nair, Timothy R. Donovan, H.V. Draa, K. Jayakar, Rohit Kochhar, K. Chandra, Rajarshi Chakrabarthi, Deepak Jacob, Hydraulics Private Limited and Tenneco Inc.

The court found that neither party conclusively established oppression or mismanagement. The relationship between the parties had deteriorated, leading ... - Issues Involved:1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Validity of the Board meeting held on 05.02.2002.3. Financial contributions and obligations under the Shareholders Agreement.4. Disputes over the recapitalization plan and the increase in authorized capital.5. Relief sought by both parties, including the direction for share allotment and removal of nominee directors.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:The Foreign Block filed CP 14/2002 alleging that the Indian Block failed to fulfill their financial obligations under the Shareholders Agreement, leading to a deadlock. They sought directions for the Company to issue equity shares worth Rs. 11 crores to the Foreign Block and for the Indian Block to bring in their proportionate equity contribution. Conversely, the Indian Block filed CP 19/2002 alleging that the Foreign Block failed to provide management, technology, marketing, and Board level support, resulting in the Company's poor performance. The Indian Block sought the removal of the nominee directors of the Foreign Block and other reliefs.2. Validity of the Board Meeting Held on 05.02.2002:The Foreign Block convened a Board meeting on 05.02.2002 with a one-day notice via email, which the Indian Block did not attend. The meeting approved the recapitalization plan and the increase in authorized capital. The Articles of Association required at least a 14-day notice and the presence of directors from both blocks for quorum. The Foreign Block's actions were deemed unfair as they did not adhere to these requirements, leading to the conclusion that the Board meeting was invalid.3. Financial Contributions and Obligations Under the Shareholders Agreement:Clause 3.3 of the Shareholders Agreement required both parties to capitalize the Company as determined by the Board. The Foreign Block proposed equity contributions, while the Indian Block suggested preference shares. The issue of recapitalization had not reached finality, and the Foreign Block's unilateral decision to bring in Rs. 11 crores was not justified. The Foreign Block's claim of deadlock was not accepted as the discussions were still ongoing.4. Disputes Over the Recapitalization Plan and the Increase in Authorized Capital:The Foreign Block's proposal to increase the authorized capital was rejected by the Indian Block in the EOGM. The Foreign Block's decision to proceed with the recapitalization unilaterally and seek approval in the EOGM was invalid as it was taken without proper quorum and against the Articles of Association. The amount of Rs. 11 crores brought in by the Foreign Block was ordered to be treated as a loan to the Company.5. Relief Sought by Both Parties:The Foreign Block's request for directions to issue equity shares and for the Indian Block to subscribe to their share was denied. The Indian Block's allegations of mismanagement by the Foreign Block were not substantiated by the Board meeting minutes, which attributed the Company's poor performance to market conditions. The Indian Block's request for removal of nominee directors was also not granted.Conclusion:Neither party established oppression or mismanagement conclusively. The relationship between the parties had soured, making it difficult to continue jointly. The Bench decided that the most equitable solution was for both blocks to bid for the shares of the other, with the highest bidder purchasing the shares. Both blocks were directed to submit their offers in closed covers, and the block offering the higher price would buy out the other. The petitions were disposed of with directions for the parties to present their offers on 2nd January 2003.