TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thed his last on 29.3.2016 in Russia. On or about 18.6.2015, Mr. Abhey Kumar Oswal filed a nomination according to section 72 of the Act in favour of Mrs. Aruna Oswal, his wife. Two witnesses duly attested the nomination in the prescribed manner. As per the appellant, it was explicitly provided therein that: "This nomination shall supersede any prior nomination made by me/us and any testamentary document executed by me/us." The name of Mrs. Aruna Oswal, the appellant, was registered as a holder on 16.4.2016 as against the shares held by her deceased husband. 3. Mr. Pankaj Oswal, respondent No.1, filed a partition suit being C.S. No.53/2017 claiming entitlement to one­fourth of the estate of Mr. Abhey Kumar Oswal. He claimed one­fourth of the deceased's shareholdings who was holding shares to the extent of 39.88% in Oswal Agro Mills. Ltd., respondent No.2. The deceased also held 11.11% shares in M/s. Oswal Greentech Ltd., respondent No.16. The partition suit was filed on 3.2.2017 by respondent No.1 for 1/4th each of 39.88% shareholding in respondent No.2 company and 11.11% shareholding in respondent No.16 company. Prayer was made for an interim injunction in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. The averments made as to oppression and mismanagement were bald and vague. (iii) Respondent No.1 indulged in forum shopping, which could not be allowed in view of the availing remedy of filing of the partition suit due to which company petition could not be said to be maintainable. (iv) The High Court ordered status quo on 8.2.2017, according to which, as the shareholding had been transferred in the name of Mrs. Aruna Oswal, she would continue to be the owner during the pendency of the suit. (v) Similar prayer has been made in the suit as well as in the company petition concerning the shareholding. The prayer regarding the determination of the ownership of shares in the company petition was the subject­matter of the civil suit, as such the application under sections 241 and 242 of the Act could not be said to be maintainable. The appropriate remedy was to apply under section 59 of the Act. (vi) The main dispute raised as to the inheritance of the estate of the deceased is a civil dispute and could not be said to be an act of oppression and mismanagement. Such a dispute could not be adjudicated in a company petition filed during the civil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company petition. Respondent No.1 indisputably has settled in Australia and had nothing to do with the management of the company. He has tried to interfere in the management of M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd illegally. The NCLT and NCLAT ignored and overlooked the rights of the deceased shareholder that would vest in the nominee. The application could not be said to be maintainable. The matter of inheritance is pending adjudication before this Court in another C.A. No.7107/2017 - Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant. It would not be appropriate for NCLT to decide a civil dispute. Respondent No.1 did not claim waiver on the rigors of section 244 of the Act and also did not file an application seeking a waiver under the proviso to section 244 of the Act. 11. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing for M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. fervently argued that in the wake of the civil suit's pendency, it was not appropriate for the NCLT to entertain the application. Reliance placed on the decision of this Court in World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Margarat T. Desor & Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 536 could not be said to be appropriate as the question of nomination was not involved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quirement to hold 10% shares, had been pleaded in the company petition filed by respondent No.1. The NCLT, as well as the NCLAT rightly held the petition to be maintainable. The civil suit's pendency could not have come in the way of maintaining the application concerning oppression and mismanagement, as only civil rights have to be determined in the civil suit. The company petition is prima facie maintainable because of the verdicts mentioned above of this Court. Hence, no case for interference in the appeals is made out. 14. The first argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties concerns the effect of nomination under section 72 of the Act, the same is extracted hereunder: "72. Power to nominate (1) Every holder of securities of a company may, at any time, nominate, in the prescribed manner, any person to whom his securities shall vest in the event of his death. (2) Where the securities of a company are held by more than one person jointly, the joint holders may together nominate, in the prescribed manner, any person to whom all the rights in the securities shall vest in the event of death of all the joint holders. (3) Notwithstanding any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itled to if he were the registered holder of the securities; and after becoming a registered holder, he can participate in the meetings of the company. Rule 19(8) is extracted hereunder: "19(8). A person, being a nominee, becoming entitled to any securities by reason of the death of the holder shall be entitled to the same dividends or interests and other advantages to which he would have been entitled to if he were the registered holder of the securities except that he shall not, before being registered as a holder in respect of such securities, be entitled in respect of these securities to exercise any right conferred by the membership in relation to meetings of the company: Provided that the Board may, at any time, give notice requiring any such person to elect either to be registered himself or to transfer the securities and if the notice is not complied with within ninety days, the Board may thereafter withhold payment of all dividends or interests, bonuses or other moneys payable in respect of the securities, as the case may be, until the requirements of the notice have been complied with." 16. In World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deceased member thereof made by his legal representative shall, although the legal representative is not himself a member, be as valid as if he had been a member at the time of the execution of the instrument of transfer." 16. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to Articles 25 to 28 of Table A of the Act, which deal with the transmission of shares and which are in the following terms: "25. (1) On the death of a member the survivor where the member was a joint holder, and his legal representatives where he was a sole holder, shall be the only persons recognised by the company as having any title to his interest in the shares. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall release the estate of a deceased joint holder from any liability in respect of any share which had been jointly held by him with other persons. 26. (1) Any person becoming entitled to a share in consequence of the death or insolvency of a member may, upon such evidence being produced as may from time to time properly be required by the Board and subject as hereinafter provided, elect, either - (a) to be registered himself as holder of the share; or (b) to make s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....", but would refuse the lesser and alternative remedy of seeking relief against oppression and mismanagement though the latter remedy requires establishment of winding up on just and equitable ground as a precondition for its invocation. It would be rather incongruous to hold that the case for winding up on just and equitable ground can be made out by the legal representatives under Section 439(4)(b) of the Act but not the other. This does not appear to be logical. It appears to us that to hold that the legal representatives of a deceased shareholder could not be given the same right of a member under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act would be taking a hyper­technical view which does not advance the cause of equity or justice. The High Court in its judgment under appeal proceeded on the basis that legal representatives of a deceased member represent the estate of that member whose name is on the register of members. When the member dies, his estate is entrusted in the legal representatives. When, therefore, these vestings are illegally or wrongfully affected, the estate through the legal representatives must be enabled to petition in respect of oppression and mismanagement and it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the register. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was pre­eminently right in holding that the legal representatives of deceased member whose name is still on the register of members are entitled to petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to consider the contention whether as on the date of petition, they were not members. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to consider the decision of this Court in Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd. v. A. Mageshwara Rao, AIR 1956 SC 213. In view of the observations of this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Limited, (1986) 1 SCC 264, it is not necessary, in our opinion, to consider the contention as made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court that the permission of the Reserve Bank of India had been erroneously obtained and consequently amounts to no permission. In the present context, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in the view it took on the first aspect of the matter." The effect of nomination did not fall for consideration before this Court in World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra). There is no dou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shy;ZA of the said Act was to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company on the death of the sole depositor. There was no similar provision regarding the vesting of rights in nominee in section 45­ZA(2). Hence, the decision is to no avail. 20. Admittedly, respondent No.1 is not holding the shares to the extent of eligibility threshold of 10% as stipulated under section 244 in order to maintain an application under sections 241 and 242. He has purchased the holding of 0.03% in M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. in June 2017 after filing civil suit and remaining 9.97% is in dispute, he is claiming on the strength of his being a legal representative. In M/s. Oswal Greentech Ltd., the shareholding of the deceased was 11.11%, out of which one­fourth share is claimed by respondent No.1. Admittedly, in a civil suit for partition, he is also claiming a right in the shares held by the deceased to the extent of one­fourth. The question as to the right of respondent no.1 is required to be adjudicated finally in the civil suit, including what is the effect of nomination in favour of his mother Mrs. Aruna Oswal, whether absolute right, title, and interest vested in the nomine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oda Civil Court. She claimed title in respect of 8000 shares by inheritance in terms of the Hindu Succession Act. Indisputably, in terms of Section 15 of the said Act she is a Class I heir but the appellants herein contend that the said provision has no application having regard to Section 5(2) thereof as inheritance in the family is governed by the rule of primogeniture. A pure question of title is alien to an application under Section 397 of the Companies Act wherefor the lack of probity is the only test. Furthermore, it is now well settled that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not completely ousted by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. Ramesh Chander Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 220) 144. A dispute as regards right of inheritance between the parties is eminently a civil dispute and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards oppression of minority shareholders by the majority shareholders and/or mismanagement." (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the basis of the petition is the claim by way of inheritance of 1/4th shareholding so as to constitute 10% of the holding, which right canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... If the Court is satisfied that the petitioners represents the body of shareholders holding the requisite percentage, the Court may proceed with the matter. This Court held thus: "47. The object of prescribing a qualifying percentage of shares in petitioners and their supporters to file petitions under Sections 397 and 398 is clearly to ensure that frivolous litigation is not indulged in by persons who have no real stake in the company. However, it is of interest that the English Companies Act contains no such limitation. What is required in these matters is a broad commonsense approach. If the Court is satisfied that the petitioners represent a body of shareholders holding the requisite percentage, it can assume that the involvement of the company in litigation is not lightly done and that it should pass orders to bring to an end the matters complained of and not reject it on a technical requirement. Substance must take precedence over form. Of course, there are some rules which are vital and go to the root of the matter which cannot be broken. There are others where non­compliance may be condoned or dispensed with. In the latter case, the rule is merely dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the property to which he may be otherwise entitled in accordance with the law. The pertinent question needs to be tried in a civil suit and adjudicated finally, it cannot be decided by NCLT in proceedings in question. Hence, we refrain from deciding the aforesaid question raised on behalf of the appellants in the present proceedings. In the facts and circumstances, it would not be appropriate to permit respondent No.1 to continue the proceedings for mismanagement initiated under sections 241 and 242, that too in the absence of having 10% shareholding and firmly establishing his rights in civil proceedings to the extent he is claiming in the shareholding of the companies. 27. We refrain to decide the question finally in these proceedings concerning the effect of nomination, as it being a civil dispute, cannot be decided in these proceedings and the decision may jeopardise parties' rights and interest in the civil suit. With regard to the dispute as to right, title, and interest in the securities, the finding of the civil Court is going to be final and conclusive and binding on parties. The decision of such a question has to be eschewed in instant proceedings. It would not....