Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (3) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 825 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - increasing of the authorised share capital - misuse of borrowed funds - Held that:- Examining the case on hand, we find no pleading made by the Petitioner to the effect that increasing of the authorised share capital was with a malafide view of reducing the petitioner to minority. Therefore, that circumstance, in our considered view, does not amount to oppression. Whether Change of name of the Company is without following the procedure? - Held that:- Mere change of the name of the company does not ipso facto amount to oppression or mismanagement as such unless it is established by the Company Petitioner that thereby, the interest of the members or the Company has been prejudicially affected. Such prejudice is observably absent. The Petitioner did not explicate acceptably as to what is the loss or prejudice sustained by the petitioners or the Company. On the other hand, his own affidavit given to the Bank shows that in the best interests of the Company in order to get loan sanctioned to the company to complete the project, he has declared that there is no 'conspiracy' in the difference in the name of the company appearing in the sale deed and the certificate of incorporation. At the instance of the petitioner, therefore, there is no evidence of prejudice caused to the members or to the company by the change of the name. Whether the change will be approved by the Government or not is not an issue before us. We therefore hold that change of the company's name does not amount to oppression or mismanagement. Whether the Respondent No. 2 has resorted to financial mismanagement prejudicial to the company? - Held that:- what is appearing to us from the circumstances on record is that both the Directors who are at the helm of affairs of the company are not pulling the cart in one direction, losing mutual confidence in each other. Conceivably, for that reason only, the Petitioner in CP 54/16 instead of calling for a Board meeting to discuss the misusing of borrowed funds by the Respondent, rushed to make a complaint in utter haste to the Syndicate Bank that has resulted in adversely affecting the business of the company, besides damaging its goodwill in the records of the financing institution. This will also lead to leave distrust in the investors who wanted to book/purchase flats in the project as they will entertain a doubt whether the project will be completed in time or not. It will frustrate the very purpose of incorporation of the Company. As a whole, as discussed above, we find no financial mismanagement with malafide intention of siphoning off company's funds. But certainly, if examined cumulatively in the discordant environment created by Petitioner and Respondent, would amount to oppression and mismanagement for compelling the Tribunal ordering liquidation of the company which is the perquisite of sections 397 and 398 of the Act - instead of ordering liquidation, by virtue of powers vested in the Tribunal under Sec. 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Sec. 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, we have to pass appropriate order for the future progression of the Company. Keeping the interest of stake holders, NCLT passed the order with specific direction to the company to resolve the issue in specified manner.
|