Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Board Companies Law - 2015 (7) TMI Board This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 298 - Board - Companies LawTransfer of shares under the family arrangement - Appointment of additional director in absence of quorum - Construction on land in breach of status quo order issued by board - Held that:- It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that a document required to be interpreted must be read as a whole. While interpreting the family arrangement it must be borne in mind that the situation as prevailing in June, 1996 and not in September, 2002 would have to be considered because the need for family arrangement arose in June, 1996 on account of irreconcilable disputes and differences arising between the two brothers, i.e., RKK and MKK. Considering the intent and purpose of the family arrangement and the fact that MKK accepted the Machinery Division in its entirety to the complete exclusion of RKK it must be held that under the family arrangement resignation by MKK as director in Hanuman Cotton Mills Ltd. (HCM) on 7th June, 2004 and 1 transfer of his 1,025 shares to RKK in 1999 were reciprocal obligations to be performed by MKK. The annual statements for the following years showing RKK as holder 1,025 shares under Folio No. 96 were signed by MMK which shows that MMK was also aware of the transfer of 1,025 shares held by MKK to RKK under the family arrangement. I accordingly hold that pursuant to the family arrangement and as agreed therein, MMK after receiving the Machinery Division to the complete exclusion of RKK had given his 1,025 shares under Folio No. 96 to RKK who in turn delivered the same to MMK who was admittedly the custodian of all the share certificates in HCM for completion of necessary legal formalities relating to transfer of such shares. The fact that under the signature of MMK, i.e., the Patriarch, and the person exercising the supervisory and controlling powers in HCM the annual returns for all subsequent years reflected RKK as the holder of 1,025 shares even though under the same Folio No. 96, the inference that shares held by MKK were agreed to be transferred to RKK is irresistible. I hold accordingly and direct HCM to rectify its register of members and to register transfer of 1,025 shares held by MKK under folio 96 in favour of RKK. In view of the above findings the petition by MKK is, in my considered opinion, actuated by his greed in view of the fact that the value of the land owned by HCM had shot up over the years. No relief, therefore, deserves to be granted to MKK since on the date of the petition he had no locus to file a petition under section 397 of the Act having divested himself of his entire shares in HCM in favour of RKK. Section 300 of the Act prohibits a director of the company from taking part in the discussion at the Board meeting if he is in anyway, whether directly or indirectly, concerned or interested in the resolution sought to be passed. His presence shall also not count at such Board meeting for the purpose of forming a quorum, at any such discussion or vote. RKK being the father of ANK was an interested director in the appointment of ANK and ought to have refrained from participating at such Board meeting held on 10th February, 2004. Therefore, even on this ground apart from there already being a lack of quorum as required by the Articles of Association of HCM the resolution passed at such Board meeting fails to satisfy the test required by law. I therefore, hold that the appointment of ANK as an Additional Director in HCM on 10th February, 2004 and the purported transfer of 60 shares by Shakuntala Kejriwal to ANK are bad in law. There is not an iota of doubt that the construction activity undertaken by RKK through Wellcast Products (P.) Ltd. (WC) on the land of HCM is clearly in breach of the status quo order dated 13th July, 2009 and liable to be removed by RKK and WC as undertaken by them. In view of my finding that the allotment of equity in HCM to WC is bad in law and set aside, R-5 (WC) has, even otherwise no legal right to remain on the land of HCM. I, therefore, direct RKK and WC to remove the entire construction by WC (R- 5) on the land of HCM within two months from the date of this order at their own cost. If this is not done a special officer shall be appointed by this Board for ensuring compliance of this order. - Decided partly in favour of appellant.
|