1985 (4) TMI 332 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether proceedings u/s 397 and/or 398 of the Companies Act are representative actions.
2. Applicability of Order 23, Rule 3-B CPC to the proceedings.
3. Validity of the alleged agreement or compromise.
4. Role of the Court in recording the compromise or satisfaction.

Summary:

1. Whether proceedings u/s 397 and/or 398 of the Companies Act are representative actions:

The Court held that proceedings u/s 397 and/or 398 of the Companies Act are representative actions. Section 399(3) of the Act indicates that a member can present a petition on behalf of other members with their consent. The Court emphasized that these proceedings concern the affairs of the company and not individual rights. The reliefs under section 402 of the Act, which regulate the conduct of the company's affairs and provide for the purchase of shares, further demonstrate the representative nature of such actions.

2. Applicability of Order 23, Rule 3-B CPC to the proceedings:

The Court found that Order 23, Rule 3-B CPC, which requires the leave of the Court for any agreement or compromise in a representative suit, is applicable. The provision mandates that no agreement or compromise in a representative suit shall be entered into without the leave of the Court, and any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the Court shall be void.

3. Validity of the alleged agreement or compromise:

The Court noted that the alleged agreement or compromise was in writing but not signed by the parties. Since the agreement was not entered into with the leave of the Court, it is void. The Court pointed out that the agreement involved parties who were not part of the proceedings, which further invalidated the compromise.

4. Role of the Court in recording the compromise or satisfaction:

The Court emphasized that any agreement or compromise in a representative action must be placed before the Court for leave before being entered into. The Court also highlighted that satisfaction should be confined to the subject matter of the suit. Since the alleged agreement involved matters outside the scope of the suit and parties not involved in the proceedings, the Court could not record the satisfaction.

Conclusion:

The application was dismissed as it was not maintainable, with the Court reiterating that proceedings u/s 397 and/or 398 of the Companies Act are representative actions, and any agreement or compromise in such actions must comply with Order 23, Rule 3-B CPC.