Court overturns Company Law Board order on interest recovery, citing agreement modification without consent.

The High Court set aside the Company Law Board's order directing the recovery of interest from the appellant company, finding it unsustainable as it modified the agreement without the appellant's consent. The Court also noted a misreading of the auditor's report by the CLB. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Validity and implications of the 'common facilities' agreement dated 30.09.1983.
3. Direction to recover interest on the interest-free financial assistance provided under the agreement.
4. Request for a special audit of the company's accounts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The respondent No. 1 filed a company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging various acts of oppression of minority shareholders and mismanagement by the persons in charge of the respondent No. 2 company. The petition was initially filed in the High Court but was later withdrawn to seek a more efficacious remedy before the Company Law Board (CLB).

2. Validity and Implications of the 'Common Facilities' Agreement:
The CLB examined the agreement dated 30.09.1983, under which the respondent No. 2 company provided an interest-free financial assistance of Rs. 55 lacs to the appellant company. The agreement was intended to facilitate certain facilities for the respondent No. 2 company, which were necessary for maintaining its Five Star Deluxe Category status. However, the CLB found that the agreement was prejudicial to the respondent No. 2 company as the facilities were not fully provided, and the duration of the loan (30 years) was unduly long, causing financial strain on the respondent No. 2 company.

3. Direction to Recover Interest:
The CLB directed the respondent No. 2 company to recover interest from the appellant company at the prevailing bank rates on the outstanding loan amount. This direction was based on the finding that the interest-free loan was prejudicial to the respondent No. 2 company and its members. The CLB noted that the agreement had been terminated, and the loan repaid, but considered it appropriate to compensate the respondent No. 2 company by way of interest.

4. Request for Special Audit:
The CLB rejected the petitioner's allegations of manipulation of accounts, inflation of expenses, and misappropriation of funds, concluding that there was no concrete evidence to warrant a special audit. The CLB was satisfied with the genuineness of the expenses and found no grounds for a special audit.

High Court's Judgment:

Modification of Agreement Without Consent:
The High Court found that the CLB's order to recover interest essentially modified the terms of the agreement dated 30.09.1983, which could not have been done without the consent of the appellant company as per clause (e) of Section 402 of the Act. The Court emphasized that any modification of an agreement with a third party requires the consent of the concerned party, which was not obtained in this case.

Misreading of Auditor's Report:
The High Court noted that the CLB had misinterpreted the auditor's report, which stated that the respondent No. 2 company did not possess certain facilities, not the appellant company. The Court found that some facilities were indeed provided by the appellant company, and the CLB's conclusion was based on an improper reading of the auditor's report.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the CLB's order directing the recovery of interest from the appellant company was unsustainable. The Court set aside the part of the impugned order dated 15.09.1997 that directed the respondent No. 2 company to recover interest from the appellant company. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

---