Disputed Share Ownership & Guardianship | Tribunal Finds Discrepancies & Oppression

Ownership of 3890 shares was disputed between the Appellant and Respondents regarding guardianship. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the deeds and lack of explicit mention of guardianship in the original petition. The transfer and subsequent unilateral cancellation of 4160 shares by R-2 were deemed potentially oppressive due to lack of cause. The issue of maintainability of the original petition was intertwined with oppression and mismanagement claims, leading to the Tribunal remanding the case for a comprehensive review of all issues raised, including the removal of Directors R-5 and R-6. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of 3890 shares.
2. Transfer and cancellation of 4160 shares.
3. Maintainability of the original company petition CP No. 189/2015.
4. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
5. Removal of Directors R-5 and R-6.

Summary:

Ownership of 3890 Shares:
The Appellant claimed guardianship of minor Ms. Harshieka Doshi, the nominee of 3890 shares held by Smt. Shrutika Doshi, based on a deed of nomination dated 3.1.2013, which was recorded by the company. The Respondents produced a later deed dated 15.1.2013, nominating R-2 as the guardian, which the Appellant alleged to be fabricated. The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not explicitly state his role as a guardian in the original petition, but mentioned it in the appeal memo.

Transfer and Cancellation of 4160 Shares:
The Appellant purchased 4160 shares from R-2, which were registered in the company's Register of Members. However, R-2 later unilaterally cancelled this transfer, claiming it was void and returned the consideration amount. The Tribunal noted that Article 30 of the Articles of Association allowed transfer of shares to non-members if it was in the company's interest. The cancellation was done without sufficient cause or adherence to natural justice principles, making it a potential act of oppression.

Maintainability of the Original Company Petition CP No. 189/2015:
The Respondents argued that the Appellant did not hold the requisite 10% shareholding to file the petition under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that the issue of maintainability should not be decided at the threshold when it is intertwined with allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal referenced judgments indicating that such issues should be decided together at the final hearing.

Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The Appellant alleged various acts of oppression and mismanagement, including the wrongful cancellation of 4160 shares and the removal of Directors R-5 and R-6. The Tribunal found that these allegations were not adequately examined on merits by the NCLT, which focused primarily on the maintainability issue.

Removal of Directors R-5 and R-6:
The Appellant challenged the removal of R-5 and R-6 as Directors, claiming it was done without proper notice and in violation of the Articles of Association. The Tribunal noted that the NCLT did not sufficiently address these allegations, and the issue required further examination.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order, which allowed the demurrer application and dismissed the original company petition without a thorough examination of the merits. The matter was remanded to the NCLT for a fresh adjudication of all issues raised in the original petition, including the guardianship of 3890 shares and the cancellation of 4160 shares. The unilateral cancellation of the 4160 shares was held as null and void. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---