Dismissal of Share Allotment Challenge and Office Shift Petition; No Prejudice Found; Oppressive Acts Not Proven

The Tribunal dismissed the petitioners' claims in Company Petition No. 4/KOB/2020, finding the allotment of shares valid, the conversion of professional fees approved in a Board Meeting, and the shifting of the registered office not prejudicial. Continuous oppressive acts were not evidenced, leading to the dismissal without costs, and closure of the Interlocutory Application No. 96/KOB/2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the allotment of 15,550,200 equity shares.
2. Violation of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the misposting of accounting entries.
3. Shifting of the Registered Office of the 1st Respondent Company.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Allotment of 15,550,200 Equity Shares
The petitioners argued that the allotment of shares was done in violation of the provisions of Section 62(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, and was aimed at taking control over the 1st Respondent Company. The respondents countered that the allotments were made to raise capital for the company, and the petitioners were offered these shares but declined. The Tribunal noted that Section 62(1)(a) ensures allotment is done to existing shareholders at a fair price. The Tribunal found that the company issued the required "Letter of Offer" to the petitioners, who did not accept the shares. Therefore, the Board of Directors was within their rights to dispose of the shares. The Tribunal concluded that the allotments were valid as the company complied with the procedure, and the petitioners' claims of oppression were unsubstantiated.

Issue 2: Violation of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Misposting of Accounting Entries
The petitioners alleged that the conversion of "Professional Fees payable" to "Unsecured Loans" was done without their consent and constituted mismanagement. The Tribunal found that the decision to convert professional fees to loans was discussed and approved in a Board Meeting attended by the petitioners. The minutes of the meeting indicated that this was done to improve the company's financial position. The Tribunal held that the petitioners, having participated in the decision, could not later claim oppression.

Issue 3: Shifting of the Registered Office
The petitioners claimed that the shifting of the registered office was done to deprive them of their rights. The Tribunal found that the registered office was initially the residential address of Respondent No.3 and was later shifted to the hospital's address. The petitioners attended meetings held at the new registered office and did not object at the time. The Tribunal concluded that the shifting of the registered office did not constitute oppression or mismanagement.

Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the petitioners' claims, finding no evidence of continuous oppressive acts. The allotments of shares were deemed valid, the conversion of professional fees to unsecured loans was approved in a Board Meeting, and the shifting of the registered office did not prejudice the petitioners. The Tribunal emphasized that for relief under Section 241, continuous acts of oppression must be proven, which was not the case here. Consequently, the Company Petition No. 4/KOB/2020 was dismissed without costs, and the Interlocutory Application No. 96/KOB/2020 was closed.

---