Tribunal voids EoGM, reinstates directors, restores shares, imposes costs

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioners, declaring the Extraordinary General Meeting (EoGM) held on 27.07.2015 and the actions taken therein as illegal and void. The Petitioners and Respondent No. 12 were reinstated as Directors, and the forfeited shares were restored to the original shareholders. Costs were imposed on Respondents for their actions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Extraordinary General Meeting (EoGM) held on 27.07.2015.
2. Legality of the forfeiture of shares of the Petitioners and other shareholders.
3. Relief sought by the Petitioners.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

(a) Legality of the EoGM held on 27.07.2015:
The EoGM held on 15.06.2015 was conducted under the supervision of an independent chairman appointed by the Company Law Board (CLB), where the Petitioners and Respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 12 were elected as Directors. The CLB recognized this election in its order dated 07.07.2015. Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 did not raise any objections before the CLB regarding this EoGM, making their subsequent objections afterthoughts. The EoGM held on 27.07.2015, which purportedly removed the Petitioners and elected Respondents Nos. 4 to 11, was deemed a betrayal of established procedures and showed a disregard for legal authority. The grounds for the EoGM, based on non-disclosure of residential status, were not legally tenable as the competent authority should have addressed any discrepancies in the DIN numbers. The defense put forth by Respondents Nos. 2 to 11, claiming an oral understanding with the Petitioner, was found improbable and contradictory. The failure to serve a 'special notice' to the Directors sought to be removed constituted a denial of their statutory rights, making the resolutions for their removal void. The appointment of Respondents Nos. 4 to 11 by a single resolution violated Section 162 of the Companies Act, 2013, rendering it void ab initio. This view was supported by various case laws.

(b) Legality of the forfeiture of shares:
The Companies Act, 1956 does not provide for forfeiture of shares, and such provisions, if any, must be outlined in the Articles of Association. Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 failed to demonstrate any such provisions authorizing the forfeiture of shares for non-disclosure of residential status. Even if authorized, the Directors cannot use their fiduciary powers to cancel shares purely to improve their voting power. The action of forfeiting shares was deemed patently illegal and void. This view was supported by the ruling in Rashmi Seth v. Chemon (India) (P.) Ltd.

(c) Relief:
The EoGM held on 27.07.2015 was declared illegal, null, and void. The removal of the Petitioners and Respondent No. 12 from the office of Directors was also declared illegal, null, and void. The Petitioners and Respondent No. 12 continue to be Directors of the 1st Respondent Company. The forfeiture of 13,53,555 shares held by 73 members/shareholders was declared illegal, null, and void, and these shareholders continue to be members of the 1st Respondent Company. The election of Respondents Nos. 4 to 11 as Directors was declared illegal and void. The 1st Respondent Company was directed to rectify the Register of Members to include the names of the Petitioners and the 73 shareholders if omitted. Costs of Rs. 50,000 were imposed on Respondents Nos. 2 to 11, to be paid to the Petitioners and Respondent No. 12 within three weeks.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioners, declaring the EoGM held on 27.07.2015 and the subsequent actions taken therein as illegal and void. The Petitioners and Respondent No. 12 were reinstated as Directors, and the forfeited shares were restored to the original shareholders. Costs were imposed on the Respondents for their actions.

---