TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 Respondent No. 1 company was incorporated on April 27, 1976, as a private company with share transfers restricted. It is admitted that the company consists only of family members of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The petitioners and respondents each hold 50% of the paid-up capital, and the company is a family business and quasi partnership between the two families. However, there is no clause in the articles maintaining the 50% ratio in the future. The respondents argue that a family arrangement negates the need for maintaining this ratio. The respondents admitted that all properties/assets were purchased from a common pool of funds jointly owned by the Sadh family. The shareholding pattern shows an equal split between the petitioners and respondents, and the respondents have not clearly denied the quasi partnership claim. Thus, the company is considered a family-run business with quasi partnership principles applicable.
Issue 2: Whether the respondents denied the inspection of records and registers to the petitioners.The petitioners claimed they were denied inspection of records and registers post-March 31, 2003. The respondents argued that the petitioners were not concerned with the management after the family arrangement dated August 30, 2004, and September 11, 2004, but admitted to sending necessary accounts to all shareholders. Correspondence between solicitors indicates no clear intention from the respondents to provide inspection. The petitioners, as 50% shareholders and directors, are entitled to inspect records and registers. The company is directed to provide such inspection and notices for board and general meetings as per legal requirements.
Issue 3: Whether this Bench has any power to direct the parties to enforce the family arrangement/settlement.The respondents heavily relied on a family arrangement dated August 30, 2004, and September 11, 2004, which allegedly divided properties between the parties. The petitioners did not mention this arrangement in their petition. The respondents claimed substantial implementation of this arrangement, leading to a pending suit in the High Court of Bombay. The Company Law Board's jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, is to address oppression and mismanagement, not to enforce private agreements or family settlements. The Supreme Court has held that private agreements not reflected in the company's articles are not binding. Thus, this Bench cannot enforce the family arrangement/settlement, and the issue is beyond its jurisdiction.
Issue 4: To what relief.The petitioners alleged misuse of company property by respondents Nos. 2 to 6 and unauthorized leasing to respondent No. 7. The respondents denied misuse and stated that the lease was recorded in board meeting minutes. The property was allotted to respondent No. 1 company, and the lease agreement with respondent No. 7 was terminated. The petitioners' request to declare all board and shareholders' resolutions from September 2003 as illegal is unsupported by evidence and thus rejected. The request to set aside any agreements to sell or transfer company property is also unsupported and rejected. The petitioners expressed willingness to exit the company for fair value, but the petition seeks to maintain the 50:50 ratio. The company is deemed a family business and quasi partnership, and the 50:50 ratio should be maintained unless the family arrangement is implemented consensually. The petition is disposed of with no orders as to costs, and all interim orders are vacated.
TaxTMI 