Statutory acquisition of dissenting shareholders' shares upheld where no fraud, oppression, or manifest unfairness was shown.
Section 153B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was upheld as a valid statutory restriction on a shareholder's right to dispose of shares, because share rights are created and regulated by company law and may be limited by a majority-approved scheme. The Madras HC held that compulsory acquisition of dissenting shareholders' shares was not unconstitutional merely because it bound minorities to the majority decision. The court further held that it would refuse the statutory acquisition only on proof of fraud, deception, oppression, unconscionability, manifest unfairness, or other sufficient cause. On the facts, no such basis was shown, and the transferee company was permitted to acquire the petitioners' shares.
Issues: (i) Whether section 153B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was ultra vires the Constitution in so far as it enabled compulsory acquisition of dissenting shareholders' shares by a transferee company; (ii) Whether, on the facts, the court should order otherwise and refuse to permit the transferee company to acquire the petitioners' shares.
Issue (i): Whether section 153B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was ultra vires the Constitution in so far as it enabled compulsory acquisition of dissenting shareholders' shares by a transferee company.
Analysis: The right attached to a share is not an absolute proprietary right divorced from statute. A share is a bundle of rights and obligations created and regulated by company law, and the incidents of transfer, voting, dividend, forfeiture, alteration of rights, and restrictions on transfer are all governed by the statutory framework. A shareholder who acquires such a right takes it subject to the limitations inherent in the corporate structure and the statutory scheme. Section 153B operates as another limitation on transferability in the context of a scheme approved by the requisite majority and therefore cannot be treated as an arbitrary deprivation of property merely because dissenting shareholders are bound by the majority decision.
Conclusion: Section 153B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 is not ultra vires the Constitution and is a valid restriction on the shareholder's right to dispose of shares.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the court should order otherwise and refuse to permit the transferee company to acquire the petitioners' shares.
Analysis: The court's power to order otherwise is to be exercised only where the dissenting shareholder establishes adequate grounds such as fraud, deception, oppression, unconscionability, or manifest unfairness in the scheme or in the manner in which majority approval was obtained. On the materials placed, the transaction was not shown to be a sham, nor was the price offered below the market value. The surrounding circumstances, including the manner in which the scheme was structured and communicated, did not establish improper means or any unfairness sufficient to displace the statutory right of acquisition. The court also declined to substitute its own view of commercial advantage for the collective judgment of the prescribed majority.
Conclusion: No sufficient ground was made out to deny the transferee company the statutory right to acquire the petitioners' shares.
Final Conclusion: The statutory mechanism permitting acquisition of dissenting shareholders' shares was upheld, and no factual basis was shown for judicial intervention against the proposed acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: Rights in company shares are statutory and subject to the limitations imposed by company law, and a court will not refuse a statutory acquisition by the majority-approved transferee company unless the dissenting shareholder proves fraud, oppression, unfairness, or other sufficient cause.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
