1998 (7) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o 100 shares of Rs. 10 each. Being subscribers to the memorandum and articles of association, the first respondent and Mr. Faiz Mohammed, became the directors on incorporation of the company. The Government of India, Ministry of Industry, granted permission in favour of the company to obtain foreign equity participation from Italy, upon which, Pucci SRL of Italy subscribed to 9,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each, accounting for 90 per cent, of the equity share capital. Pucci SRL is represented by the petitioner, being its president. Though the remaining 10 per cent, of equity share capital was held by the first respondent the amount for acquiring the shares in favour of the first respondent was advanced by Graziella Shoes Private Limited in which the petitioner is a director and investor. The first respondent is not the beneficial owner of 10 per cent, shares. Besides the share capital contributed by Pucci SRL, Pucci SRL advanced an amount of Rs. 4,14,06,228 by way of payments towards imports by the company and Rs. 1,19,72,000 by way of unsecured loans. In the circumstances, the petitioner alone has a stake in the company and neither has the first respondent nor Mr. Faiz Mohammed.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pite of the letter dated February 11, 1998, of the petitioner, the first respondent wilfully and deliberately avoided attending the board meeting convened on February 20, 1998. As there was no quorum in the board meeting held on February 20, 1998, no business was transacted in respect of the requisition of Pucci SRL. Mr. Faiz Mohammed already ceased to be a director and relinquished his interest in respect of his 100 shares in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the first respondent is only the other share holder and director, apart from the petitioner. Though the requisitionists themselves are empowered to convene an extraordinary general meeting it would be a futile exercise, especially when the first respondent, being the only other shareholder wilfully refuses to attend the meeting. It has become impracticable from a reasonable point of view to convene a meeting of the company compelling the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Section 186. The Company Law- Board must take a practical view of the matter. In this connection, counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions : (a) El Sombrero Ltd., In re [1958] 28 Comp Cas 619 ; [1958J 3 All ER 1 (Ch D) to sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpracticable to call a meeting or to conduct it in the manner prescribed by the articles^ the court may, either on its own motion or on the application of a director or any member entitled to vote, order a meeting to be called, held and conducted in such a manner as the court thinks fit, and may direct a 'meeting' of one member." 4. While concluding his arguments, counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner need not exhaust his remedy under the provisions of Section 169, which is independent of Section 186. It is in these circumstances, he sought for suitable directions against the company to convene an extraordinary general meeting to transact the business specified in the requisition dated February 9, 1998, fixing the quorum as one member at such meeting. 5. According to the first respondent and his counsel, Shri R. Sankaranarayanan, the petitioner, first respondent and one Mr. Faiz Mohammed, are members of the company. Both the first respondent and Mr. Faiz Mohammed subscribed to 100 shares each at the time of subscribing to the memorandum of association. Mr. Faiz Mohammed has not transferred his shares and continues to be a member, who can attend the extr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anagement of a company which should be conducted in accordance with its articles. 2. The discretion granted under Section 186 should be used sparingly and with caution so that the court does not become either a shareholder or director of the company trying to participate in the internecine squabbles of the company. 3. The word 'impracticable' means impracticable from a reasonable point of view. 4. The court should take a common sense view of the matter and must act as a prudent man of business. 5. A prudent man of business has not a sensitive officious view of intervention in case of every rivalry between two groups of directors ; prudence demands that the court should ordinarily keep itself aloof from participating in quarrels of rival groups of directors or shareholders. 6. But where the meeting can be called only by the directors and there are serious doubts and controversy as to who are the directors or where there is a possibility that one or other or both the meetings called by the rival groups of directors may be invalid, the court ought not to expose the shareholders to uncertainties and should hold that a position has arisen which makes it 'impra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eason, it is "impracticable" to call a statutory meeting or an extraordinary general meeting according to the provisions of the Act or articles, the Company Law Board may, either on its own motion or on the application of any director of the company, or any member thereof entitled to vote at the meeting, direct calling of a meeting and give directions therefore. It is, therefore, clear that either a director or a member of the company entitled to vote at the meeting can file an application under Section 186. Secondly, it should be impracticable to call an extraordinary general meeting of the company. Unless these two conditions are met, no petition will lie under Section 186 of the Act. 10. There is no dispute as to whether the petitioner is a director of the company. The petitioner is admittedly one of the directors. Therefore, this question does not arise for consideration by this Bench. 11. With regard to the issue whether it is impracticable to call an extraordinary general meeting of the company, the relevant facts and circumstances of the case shall be looked into. Article 2 of the articles of association of the company provides that the regulations contained in Schedul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... company. The resignation of Mr. Faiz Mohammed, as a director was accepted in the board meeting held on November 6, 1996. In the meetings held on February 6, 1997, February 19, 1997 and April 2, 1997, among other things, the progress of the company was reviewed and the accounts for the year ended March 31, 1996, were approved. At the annual general meeting held on May 2, 1997, the annual accounts for the year ended March 51, 1996, were adopted, and the reappointment of the petitioner as director of the company was approved. Several contentious issues were discussed in the meeting held at the factory premises of the company on December 19, 1997. It is, therefore, apparent that the first respondent was regular in attending the meetings save the one which took place on February 20, 1998. According to the first respondent in the reply-affidavit, the petitioner had convened the board meeting on February 20, 1998, with a one-point programme of eliminating the former. Counsel for the first respondent further urged that item No. 1 of the requisition dated February 9, 1998, relating to restructuring of the management of the company is very vague, under which, the first respondent was to be ....