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 <h1>Tribunal rules appointments and share issuances illegal, orders capital reversal and audit.</h1> <h3>Mrutyunjay Kar Versus Purbanchal Petroleum Private Limited</h3> Mrutyunjay Kar Versus Purbanchal Petroleum Private Limited - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Appointment of R2 as Managing Director and R3 as Director.2. Issue and allotment of further shares.3. Acts amounting to oppression and mismanagement.Detailed Analysis:1. Appointment of R2 as Managing Director and R3 as DirectorThe petitioner contended that the appointments of R2 as Managing Director and R3 as Director were done without any valid Board or General Meeting and without notifying the petitioner. The Articles of Association and the Companies Act, 1956, require a resolution to be passed in a valid meeting for such appointments. The Tribunal found that the appointments were made in violation of these statutory provisions and the Articles of Association. The appointment of R3 as Director and R2 as Managing Director was declared illegal due to the lack of a valid quorum and proper notice to the petitioner.2. Issue and Allotment of Further SharesThe petitioner alleged that additional shares were allotted to the respondents without holding any valid Board or General Meeting and without notifying the petitioner. The Tribunal noted that the increase in authorized capital and subsequent allotment of shares were done without following the statutory requirements under the Companies Act, 1956, and the Articles of Association. The purported further issue of capital was done at various AGMs for which the petitioner was never notified. This act of allotting shares to the respondents, excluding the petitioner, reduced the petitioner’s shareholding to an insignificant minority and was deemed an act of oppression.3. Acts Amounting to Oppression and MismanagementThe petitioner argued that the respondents mismanaged the company’s affairs by not regularizing the company’s bank accounts, failing to hold proper meetings, and not providing financial statements. The Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to comply with statutory requirements, such as holding Annual General Meetings and providing notices for the same. The petitioner also highlighted the mismanagement of funds and the company’s financial distress, as indicated by the bank’s letter. The Tribunal found that these actions constituted mismanagement and oppression against the petitioner.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the actions of the respondents amounted to oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal directed the respondents to reverse the changes in the authorized capital and undo the issue and allotment of shares to the respondents. The appointments of R2 as Managing Director and R3 as Director were also to be reversed. An independent audit of the company’s accounts was ordered, with the cost to be borne by the respondents.Order:The petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to reverse the changes in the authorized capital and the allotment of shares. The appointments of R2 and R3 were to be reversed. An independent audit was ordered, with the petitioner to propose an auditor within seven days, failing which both parties could propose three auditors each for the Tribunal to choose from. The costs of the audit were to be borne by the respondents. No orders as to costs were made.
TaxTMI 