Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2018 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2017 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - Seeking to appoint an independent auditor to audit the accounts of the Company from the date of incorporation till date - seeking to direct the Respondent No. I to convene and hold a board meeting to consider the passing of the accounts so audited - seeking to grant injunction restraining the Respondent No. 2 from making transfer of funds except with the consent of the Petitioners and other board members - seeking to restore the rightful position and the authority of the Petitioners to direct and control the operations of the Respondent No. I company - seeking to investigate and assess the sums of money of Respondent No. I Company misappropriated by any person and direct person guilty of such misappropriation to restore the funds to the Respondent No. I company - seeking to direct the 1 st Respondent Company to pay the salary of the petitioners promptly each month. HELD THAT:- It is a fact that the petitioners shareholders. wanted funds for the development of the company for which purpose roped the R2 into the company and while doing so both the parties have entered into the SPA and SSSA. Further the SSSA is also incorporated in the AOA - It is also a fact that the R I and R2 herein are the promoter directors and they are still continuing as directors of the Company. They are very much aware that SPA and SSSA contains clause with regard to appointment of other directors by the investor and it is also a fact that what binds on the Company would also binds its board of directors and shareholders. Clause 9 of SSSA and Clause 7.1 of amended AOA deal with use of money, borrowings and funding and clause 10.17 and clause 8.18 of the amended AOA deal with decision of the board. The clause 10.20 of the SSSA deals with the undertaking given by the petitioners. It is also a fact that the company convened all the board meetings and general meetings and the petitioners are party to the decisions taken in such meetings. The petitioners have not made any allegations that the Company has not convened any meetings. It is also an admitted fact that the Clause 19.4 and 19.5 of SSSA and Clause 17.4 and 17.5 of the amended AOA deal with the provisions of infusing funds and it also bars the RI and R2 (the main petitioners in CP) to obstruct or create any impediment to such further subscription by the investor. The petitioners in the main petition sought for appointment of an auditor to audit the accounts of the Company from its incorporation, direct the respondents to convene the board meeting to consider the passing Of the accounts so audited, grant injunction restraining the R2 from making transfer of funds except with the consent of the petitioners and other board members and restore the rightful position and authority of the petitioner to the direct control of the operations of the applicant company. It is a fact that the board meetings and general meetings have been convened by the Company as per the provisions of the Act and the petitioners are party to all such decisions taken in the said meetings. The infusing of funds and allotment of shares are also covered in the SSSA. The other directors who are not party to the agreement are not third parties and they are the directors appointed by the investor (R2 in the main petition) as per the clause of SSSA. Being aware about the consequences of the SPA and SSSA and, the petitioners having entered into such SPA and SSSA, it is not proper for them to make allegations against R2 in the main petition. It is clear that the dispute between the parties arises only out of SPA and SSSA and, therefore, in the circumstances it is felt that the issues raised have to be referred to Arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause contained in the said agreements. Regarding the managerial decisions which can be raised in a Petition under Section 241/242 of the Act, it is held that the Petitioners were a party to all the decisions and cannot raise the issues by way of a Petition under Section 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Application allowed.
|