Board of Directors' Removal Declared Illegal, Restored to Positions. Quashed Meetings; Shares Issuance Upheld. Mismanagement Allegations for Civil Court.

The Tribunal partially allowed the petition, declaring the removal of the petitioners from the Board of Directors as illegal and restoring them to their positions. It quashed all subsequent board meetings and actions except for the issuance of shares to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which were found to be in accordance with the law. Other allegations of mismanagement and oppression were left to be tried by a civil court of appropriate jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the agreement dated 30.08.2014 between Prayag Infotech Hi Rise Ltd and ASOMI Industries Private Limited.
2. Legality of the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as directors of Sashi Kumar Tea Company Private Limited.
3. Validity of the board meeting dated 19.09.2014 and subsequent actions taken therein.
4. Legality of the issuance of shares to respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
5. Allegations of mismanagement and oppression by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Agreement Dated 30.08.2014
The petitioners contended that the agreement dated 30.08.2014 is void due to violations of Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872, and Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. The respondents argued that the agreement is not void as the provisions of the Regulation Act, 1956 are applicable only to listed companies, and the company in question is a private company. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Sections 13 and 16 of the Regulation Act, 1956, do not apply to private companies, thus rejecting the petitioners' claim.

2. Legality of the Appointment of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Directors
The petitioners claimed that the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as directors was illegal. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioners themselves had inducted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as directors during an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) held on 13.09.2014. The Tribunal concluded that the appointment was legal and valid.

3. Validity of the Board Meeting Dated 19.09.2014 and Subsequent Actions
The petitioners alleged that the board meeting held on 19.09.2014, during which they were removed from the Board of Directors, was illegal as it violated Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found that no special notice was served to the petitioners before their removal, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 169. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the removal of the petitioners from the Board of Directors as illegal and restored them to their positions.

4. Legality of the Issuance of Shares to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
The petitioners claimed that the issuance of shares to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was in violation of Sections 42 and 62 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal examined the records and found that a special resolution was adopted during the EOGM on 13.09.2014, authorizing the issuance of shares through private placement. The Tribunal concluded that the issuance of shares was in accordance with the law and rejected the petitioners' claim.

5. Allegations of Mismanagement and Oppression
The petitioners alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 engaged in acts of mismanagement and oppression, including the illegal removal of the petitioners from the Board of Directors and the fraudulent issuance of shares. The Tribunal found that the illegal removal of the petitioners constituted an act of mismanagement. However, the Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to support the allegations of fraud and mismanagement beyond the illegal removal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the petition. It declared the removal of the petitioners from the Board of Directors as illegal and restored them to their positions. The Tribunal also quashed all subsequent board meetings and actions taken therein, except for the issuance of shares to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The Tribunal left other allegations to be tried by a civil court of appropriate jurisdiction.

---