Shareholder approval for disposal of undertaking is mandatory; without it, the sale agreement remains unenforceable.

A company's agreement to sell immovable assets was treated as unenforceable because disposal of the whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking required shareholder approval under Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 and the company's articles. The doctrine of indoor management could not cure that mandatory statutory breach, and board minutes could not substitute for general meeting consent. The purchaser was denied specific performance because the contract lacked statutory validity and readiness and willingness was not proved; ancillary damages were also rejected for insufficient pleadings and proof. The plaintiff in the first suit was permitted to challenge the transaction, while a separate plea that the clauses were prejudicial to the company was not accepted on its own.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement for sale executed by the company was invalid and unenforceable for want of compliance with Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 and the company's articles; (ii) whether the plaintiff in the first suit had consented to or could validly challenge the sale transaction; (iii) whether the purchaser was entitled to specific performance and ancillary damages; (iv) whether the clauses in the agreement were prejudicial to the company.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement for sale executed by the company was invalid and unenforceable for want of compliance with Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 and the company's articles?

Analysis: The sale of the company's immovable assets was authorised only by the board and was not preceded by a valid consent of the shareholders in general meeting. The statutory restriction in Section 293(1)(a) required shareholder approval for disposition of the whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking, and the articles also made the directors' power subject to that provision. The court held that the doctrine of indoor management could not cure a clear breach of a mandatory statutory requirement, and due diligence by the purchaser did not dispense with compliance.

Conclusion: The agreement for sale was held to be unenforceable and invalid for want of compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff in the first suit had consented to or could validly challenge the sale transaction?

Analysis: The evidence showed that no general body meeting was convened to approve the sale, and the plaintiff's alleged consent was not established as a matter of law. The plaintiff, as a shareholder and founder, was held entitled to question the transaction on the ground that the mandatory procedure had not been followed. The court also noted that the later ratification in the board minutes did not amount to shareholder approval.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was held entitled to challenge the transaction, and the absence of shareholder approval was fatal to the sale.

Issue (iii): Whether the purchaser was entitled to specific performance and ancillary damages?

Analysis: Specific performance was declined because the purchaser did not establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract, waited till the end of limitation, and sought relief in a contract that was itself unenforceable for want of statutory compliance. The claim for damages was also rejected because the foundation for compensation was not made out and the pleadings and proof were insufficient to support the quantified claim.

Conclusion: The purchaser was denied specific performance and damages.

Issue (iv): Whether the clauses in the agreement were prejudicial to the company?

Analysis: The court found that the plaintiff did not establish, independently of the statutory defect, that the contractual clauses were prejudicial to the company in the sense pleaded. The decisive ground remained the absence of shareholder approval and consequent non-enforceability of the agreement.

Conclusion: The plea that the clauses were prejudicial was not accepted as a standalone ground, though the agreement remained unenforceable on statutory grounds.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment granted relief in the suit challenging the sale agreement and refused relief in the suit seeking specific performance and damages, with the result that the impugned sale transaction could not be enforced in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A disposition of a company's whole or substantially whole undertaking made without the shareholder consent required by Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 is unenforceable, and the doctrine of indoor management cannot validate a clear breach of that mandatory statutory restriction.

---