Tribunal allows shareholder intervention, affirms right to sell shares, mandates compliance with SEBI and Companies Act

The Tribunal allowed the intervention of shareholders in the proceedings, finding them necessary parties to address allegations of oppression and mismanagement. It clarified that the interim order did not restrict shareholders from selling their shares, emphasizing their right to do so in a public limited company. The Tribunal permitted the sale of shares with regulatory approvals, ensuring compliance with SEBI regulations and the Companies Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Intervention in proceedings by shareholders.
2. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
3. Validity of interim orders and their implications on shareholding.
4. Right to sell shares in a public limited company.
5. Compliance with SEBI regulations and Companies Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Intervention in Proceedings by Shareholders:
Intervening Petition No. 2 of 2017 was filed by shareholders holding 12.5% of the share capital of Vadodara Stock Exchange Limited, seeking to intervene in the proceedings of Company Petition No. 61 of 2016. They alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement and claimed a right to participate in the proceedings. The Tribunal found that the intervening petitioners were proper and necessary parties to the proceedings, as their participation would not change the cause of action but would help in addressing the allegations of oppression and mismanagement. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the intervention and directed the original petitioner to amend the cause title to include the intervening petitioners as respondents.

2. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The original petitioner alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement by the respondents, including misuse of the company by fabricating records and taking arbitrary decisions. The Tribunal noted that the dispute involved two groups of directors and shareholders within Vadodara Stock Exchange Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that the right of the shareholders to question the acts of oppression and mismanagement could not be taken away, and the matter would be decided after the final hearing in the main petition.

3. Validity of Interim Orders and Their Implications on Shareholding:
The interim order dated 28-04-2016 by the Company Law Board directed maintaining the status quo over the shareholding and capital of the company. The applicants in IA 291, 293, 295 to 297, 299, 300, 302 to 311 of 2017 sought modification of this order, arguing that it restricted their ability to sell shares despite having good offers. The Tribunal clarified that the interim order was intended to prevent changes in the authorized and paid-up share capital, not to restrict the sale of shares by shareholders. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the applicants to sell their shares, provided there was no change in the shareholding pattern.

4. Right to Sell Shares in a Public Limited Company:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v. Gharda Chemicals Ltd., which held that restrictions on the transfer of shares in a public limited company violate the Companies Act. Vadodara Stock Exchange Limited, being a public limited company, allowed its shareholders the right to sell their shares. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the original petitioner alleged collusion to gain majority control, it was not a valid ground to restrain shareholders from selling their shares if they received good offers.

5. Compliance with SEBI Regulations and Companies Act:
The Tribunal noted that the present Board did not follow SEBI's exit order dated 09-11-2015. The original petitioner alleged violations of the Companies Act and collusion among applicants to gain majority control. However, the Tribunal found that these allegations did not justify restricting the sale of shares. The Tribunal permitted the sale of shares subject to necessary approvals from regulatory authorities, ensuring compliance with relevant laws.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed Intervening Petition No. 2 of 2017, directing amendments to include the intervening petitioners as respondents. Intervening Petition No. 3 of 2017 was allowed to a limited extent, permitting applicants to sell their shares subject to regulatory approvals while maintaining the shareholding pattern. The Tribunal emphasized the shareholders' right to sell shares in a public limited company and clarified the scope of the interim order regarding shareholding and capital.

---