Director's removal found invalid, Managing Director removal upheld. Compensation awarded. Financial Collaboration Agreement deemed non-binding.

The NCLT found the removal of the 1st respondent as Director invalid due to procedural irregularities but upheld the removal as Managing Director. Compensation of Rs. 105 lakhs was awarded for loss of office, with the direction to purchase shares. The Financial Collaboration Agreement was deemed non-binding, and allegations of oppression and mismanagement were not substantiated. The NCLT's decision was upheld on appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the removal of the 1st respondent as Director.
2. Validity of the removal of the 1st respondent as Managing Director.
3. Entitlement of the 1st respondent to compensation for loss of office.
4. Binding nature of the Financial Collaboration Agreement (FCA) on the company.
5. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Removal of the 1st Respondent as Director:
The NCLT found that the removal of the 1st respondent from the post of Director was not in consonance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The Board Meetings and shareholders' meetings were not held without quorum, and there was a typographical error in the notice and minutes of the EGM. The agenda did not disclose the intention to remove the 1st respondent as Director. Thus, the removal was deemed invalid.

2. Validity of the Removal of the 1st Respondent as Managing Director:
The NCLT held that the removal of the 1st respondent from the office of Managing Director was valid. The respondents cited "loss of confidence" as the reason for removal, which was accepted. The Articles of Association allowed the Board to revoke such appointments, and the lack of confidence was a valid contingency for removal. The NCLT concluded that the action of removal by the majority shareholders could not be questioned.

3. Entitlement of the 1st Respondent to Compensation for Loss of Office:
The NCLT awarded compensation to the 1st respondent under Section 202 of the Companies Act, 2013. The 1st respondent was entitled to receive remuneration for the remainder of his term or for three years, whichever is shorter. The compensation was calculated at Rs. 35 lakhs per annum for three years, totaling Rs. 105 lakhs, with interest at 10% from the date of removal. The NCLT also directed the respondents to purchase the shares of the 1st respondent at mutually agreed rates.

4. Binding Nature of the Financial Collaboration Agreement (FCA) on the Company:
The NCLT found that the FCA was entered into after the incorporation of the company and was not binding on the company as it was not a party to it. The Articles of Association had not been amended to incorporate the terms of the FCA. The NCLT concluded that the claim for 25% of the shares by the 1st respondent should fail, as there was no evidence supporting entitlement to additional shares.

5. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The NCLT did not find substantial evidence of oppression and mismanagement. The 1st respondent's claims of oppression and mismanagement were rebutted by the respondents. The respondents argued that the 1st respondent did not comply with statutory provisions and that the removal was due to gross mismanagement. The NCLT did not find merit in the allegations and focused on the procedural aspects of the removal and compensation.

Conclusion:
The NCLT's judgment was comprehensive, addressing the procedural irregularities in the removal of the 1st respondent as Director, validating the removal as Managing Director due to loss of confidence, and awarding compensation for the loss of office. The FCA was not binding on the company, and the allegations of oppression and mismanagement were not substantiated. The appeal was dismissed, and the NCLT's order was upheld.

---