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>NCLT validates Company Petition, invalidates agreement, grants reliefs, directs costs for unjustified litigation</h1> <h3>M/s. Priyaranjani Fibres Limited, Mr. Kandula Sivananda Reddy, Mr. Kandula Uttam Reddy Versus Mr. Kora Siva Sudershan Reddy Versus Mr. D. Srinivasa Rao, Mr. Tej Kumar, Ms. D. Chandana, Ms. D. Kavitha, Mrs. D. Lakshmi, Mr. Cheedi Latchayya, Mr. Ch. Ramana Murthy, M/s. Siri Consultants, Mr. M. Visweswara Rao, Mr. V.K. Vijaya Kumar, Mr. T. Pulla Rao, Mr. M. Srikanth Reddy, Mr. D. Krishna Rao, Mr. G.V. Ramana, Mrs. D. Umavathi, Mr. D. Narasimha Murthy, Mrs. Ch. Madhu Latha, Mr. P. Dasaratha Rao, Mr. Kornu Mohan Rao, Mr. K.H. Prasad, Mr. P. Ram Babu, Mr. M. Uma Rao, Mr. B. Krishna Rao And Ors.</h3> M/s. Priyaranjani Fibres Limited, Mr. Kandula Sivananda Reddy, Mr. Kandula Uttam Reddy Versus Mr. Kora Siva Sudershan Reddy Versus Mr. D. Srinivasa Rao, ... Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the Company Petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Validity and binding nature of the agreement dated 09.10.2003.3. Validity of re-appointments of the Executive Vice-Chairman and Directors.4. Shareholding and directorship status of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.5. Reliefs entitled to the Petitioners.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Company Petition:The contesting Respondents challenged the maintainability of the Company Petition on the grounds that the Petitioners did not hold the requisite 10% shares as required under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. They also questioned the validity of the Powers of Attorney authorizing the filing of the Petition. The NCLT confirmed that the Petitioners held the necessary percentage of shares at the time of filing the Petition and had validly authorized Petitioner No.1 to file the Petition.2. Validity and Binding Nature of the Agreement Dated 09.10.2003:The agreement dated 09.10.2003, where Respondent No.2 agreed to transfer shares to Respondent No.3, was deemed invalid by the NCLT. The Tribunal observed that the agreement was entered into without the approval of the Board of Directors, shareholders, financial institutions, and BIFR, which was necessary given the company’s status as a sick industrial company under SICA. The NCLT declared the agreement as not binding on the company and its shareholders.3. Validity of Re-appointments of the Executive Vice-Chairman and Directors:The NCLT found that the re-appointments of Respondent No.2 as Executive Vice-Chairman and the appointments of Petitioners 8 and 14 as Directors were valid. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of proper and valid appointments of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as Managing Director/Directors, as required by the company’s Articles of Association and statutory provisions. The contesting Respondents failed to prove that they were duly appointed by a General Body Meeting of shareholders.4. Shareholding and Directorship Status of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5:The NCLT declared that Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 did not hold any shares in the company and were not validly appointed as Directors. The Tribunal noted that the purported issuance of 1,13,00,000 equity shares by the contesting Respondents was illegal and without authority. The Tribunal further observed that the contesting Respondents continued to interfere in the company’s affairs despite being restrained by judicial orders, which were upheld by higher courts.5. Reliefs Entitled to the Petitioners:The NCLT granted several reliefs to the Petitioners, including:- Declaring the agreement dated 09.10.2003 as terminated and not conferring any rights to Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.- Declaring the Board Meetings and resolutions passed by Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as illegal.- Declaring the issue and allotment of 1,13,00,000 equity shares as illegal.- Declaring that Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 ceased to be MD/Directors from 02.01.2008.- Restraining Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 from interfering with the company’s affairs.- Directing Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to pay costs to the Petitioners.Conclusion:The NCLT’s judgment was upheld with a minor modification concerning the declaration of the agreement dated 09.10.2003. The Tribunal clarified that the agreement was not binding on the company and the Petitioners. The contesting Respondents were ordered to pay costs for continuing to drag the company into litigation without any valid case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
