Petition under Sections 397/398 dismissed for unclean hands after receiving payment while challenging share sale transaction

The Company Law Board Mumbai dismissed a petition filed under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement. The CLB held that the petitioner approached with unclean hands, having received part payment for shares while challenging the sale transaction. The petition was not time-barred as oppression provisions don't fall under the Limitation Act and alleged acts were continuing in nature. The petitioner failed to establish that property was undervalued or that discrimination occurred in share payments. The power of attorney executed by the company was deemed valid despite procedural irregularities, as all shareholders including the petitioner had consented to the sale transaction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement
2. Validity of sale transaction and valuation of shares
3. Appointment of directors and validity of resolutions
4. Validity of Power of Attorney (POA)
5. Discrimination in payment to shareholders
6. Maintainability of the petition

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction under Sections 397, 398, and 399 read with Sections 402, 403, and 406 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents in the conduct of the Company's affairs. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent No. 2, in connivance with Respondents Nos. 4 to 8, attempted to dispose of the Company's property, surreptitiously entered into a sale transaction, and misappropriated shares by making a part payment of Rs. 24,01,942/- only. It was also alleged that no General Meetings had been held since 2009, constituting a gross act of oppression.

2. Validity of Sale Transaction and Valuation of Shares:
The Petitioner contended that the sale transaction was carried out without her consent and the shares were grossly undervalued. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the price of Rs. 1,178/- per share was determined with the Petitioner's consent and the amount received was full consideration. The Court found that the Petitioner had accepted the amount and signed the transfer forms, thus acting in furtherance of the sale transaction. The Court also noted that the Petitioner did not offer to refund the amount received, indicating misconduct on her part. The Court concluded that the Petitioner had not approached the CLB with clean hands and was not entitled to any discretionary reliefs.

3. Appointment of Directors and Validity of Resolutions:
The Petitioner challenged the appointment of Mr. Anant Khetani as a Director, alleging it was illegal and invalid. The Court found that Mr. Khetani's appointment was made in accordance with the Articles of Association and the provisions of the Companies Act. The Petitioner also challenged the validity of the Circular Resolution dated 12/06/2011, which was used to execute the POA. The Court held that the Circular Resolution was valid and the POA was a registered document, thus rejecting the Petitioner's claims.

4. Validity of Power of Attorney (POA):
The Petitioner argued that the POA executed in favor of Respondent No. 2 was invalid due to the alleged illegality in the appointment of Mr. Khetani. The Court found that the POA was executed based on a valid Circular Resolution and there was no illegality in the process. The Court noted that the property needed urgent repairs and the POA was executed to address this issue.

5. Discrimination in Payment to Shareholders:
The Petitioner alleged discrimination in payment, claiming that other shareholders were paid full consideration without tendering their shares, while she was not. The Court found that the Petitioner was paid for the shares she tendered and the balance was not paid because she did not deposit the remaining shares. The Court also noted that the Petitioner continued to be a shareholder and her name existed in the Register of Members.

6. Maintainability of the Petition:
The Respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds of suppression of material facts and delay. The Court held that the Petitioner had not approached the CLB with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. The Court also noted that the acts of oppression and mismanagement were continuing in nature and the petition was not barred by limitation. However, the Court concluded that the Petitioner had failed to make out a case under Section 397/398 of the Act and dismissed the petition.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had not approached the CLB with clean hands and had failed to substantiate her allegations. The Court held that the sale transaction, appointment of directors, and execution of the POA were valid and there was no act of oppression or mismanagement. The interim order was extended for four weeks to enable the Petitioner to file an appeal.

---