Derivative suit not maintainable during insolvency, with statutory oppression and mismanagement remedies excluding parallel civil action.

A shareholder derivative suit on behalf of a company was held not maintainable once corporate insolvency resolution proceedings began and an interim resolution professional took control, because the company's affairs then vested in the insolvency framework and the shareholder was expected to approach the resolution professional or the NCLT. The action was also treated as barred independently of insolvency, since the Companies Act provides a statutory remedy for oppression and mismanagement and civil court jurisdiction is excluded in such matters. The pleaded claims for fraud, misrepresentation, voidness and refund were treated as causes belonging to the company itself, not to the shareholder personally.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of a company remains maintainable after commencement of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings and appointment of an interim resolution professional, and (ii) whether, independent of insolvency, the claimed derivative action is barred because the Companies Act provides a statutory remedy for oppression and mismanagement and because the pleaded grounds for declaratory relief are personal to the company.

Issue (i): whether a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of a company remains maintainable after commencement of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings and appointment of an interim resolution professional

Analysis: Once insolvency proceedings were admitted, the affairs of the corporate debtor stood vested in the interim resolution professional, whose statutory role under the insolvency regime displaced the earlier management and Board in relation to the company's affairs. In that setting, the rationale for a derivative action disappeared because the company was no longer in the control of the very persons alleged to have failed to act. The proper course for a shareholder was to approach the interim resolution professional, and thereafter, if necessary, the National Company Law Tribunal. A civil derivative action, therefore, could not continue as a parallel remedy in the face of the insolvency framework and the moratorium.

Conclusion: The derivative suit was not maintainable after commencement of insolvency proceedings and appointment of the interim resolution professional.

Issue (ii): whether, independent of insolvency, the claimed derivative action is barred because the Companies Act provides a statutory remedy for oppression and mismanagement and because the pleaded grounds for declaratory relief are personal to the company

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Companies Act, 2013 furnishes a remedy to a member complaining of prejudice to the company's interests, thereby covering the kind of grievance sought to be pursued by the plaintiff on behalf of the company. Since the Legislature has provided a special forum and barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters, the common law derivative action could not be invoked to obtain the same relief. Separately, the challenge to the company's agreements on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, voidness and refund was a cause that belonged to the company itself, not to a shareholder in its personal capacity. The plaintiff's majority status and board representation also negatived any necessity for a derivative exception on the pleaded facts.

Conclusion: The derivative action was not maintainable even apart from the insolvency proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The suit could not be pursued as a derivative action and was liable to be rejected in favour of the defendant company.

Ratio Decidendi: Where insolvency proceedings place the company under the control of an interim resolution professional, and the Companies Act provides a statutory remedy covering grievances affecting the company's interests, a common law derivative suit for the company's benefit is not maintainable in civil court.

---