TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners had locus standi and were competent to maintain the company petition as legal heirs representing the estate of the deceased shareholder. (ii) Whether the increase in authorised capital, allotment of additional shares, and induction of additional directors amounted to oppression and mismanagement warranting relief.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners had locus standi and were competent to maintain the company petition as legal heirs representing the estate of the deceased shareholder.
Analysis: The petitioners' entitlement to represent the estate was examined in the light of the succession proceedings, the subsequent settlement, and earlier orders of the Company Law Board. The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398 was equitable and not testamentary, that the petitioners were entitled to represent the estate on the date of filing, and that later developments could not defeat maintainability. It also held that the petition was maintainable without impleading the grandmother, since no rival claim to her co-ownership interest was set up and the challenge was directed to the estate as a whole.
Conclusion: The petitioners had locus standi and the petition was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the increase in authorised capital, allotment of additional shares, and induction of additional directors amounted to oppression and mismanagement warranting relief.
Analysis: The Tribunal found a series of interconnected acts showing lack of probity and an attempt to convert an overwhelming majority holding of the estate into a minority. It held that the petitioners and other legal heirs were denied notice and participation, that the respondents failed to establish the necessity or bona fides of the capital increase and allotment, and that the conduct was oppressive within the meaning of the settled principles governing sections 397 and 398. The Tribunal also held that the objections of limitation, acquiescence, and past concluded transactions were unsustainable in the facts, and that a special audit was justified in view of the alleged diversion and encumbrance of company funds.
Conclusion: The impugned corporate actions were oppressive and liable to be set aside, and consequential reliefs including rectification of the register, reconstitution of the board, and special audit were granted.
Final Conclusion: The company petition succeeded, with the Tribunal granting substantive relief against the impugned corporate actions, restoring the earlier position as to board composition and shareholding, and directing a special audit and consequential corrective measures.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, a concerted series of corporate acts that lacks probity and is designed to exclude legal heirs of the controlling shareholder and convert a dominant holding into a minority holding constitutes oppression and justifies setting aside the impugned resolutions and granting consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
