1982 (8) TMI 165 - HC - Companies Law

Share capital - Further issue of Right to obtain copies and inspect trust deed Powers of Court to rectify register of members

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Alleged mala fides and breach of fiduciary duty by the company's directors.
3. Compliance with Section 81 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Validity of the debenture trust deed and the option to convert debentures into shares.
5. Allegations of acquiescence, laches, and ratification by the plaintiffs.

Detailed Analysis:

Maintainability of the Suit:
The court held that the suit was maintainable. It was argued that the right to rectify the share register of a company is an individual right of each shareholder. The court agreed, stating that every shareholder has an individual right and interest in ensuring that the share register reflects the true position. This right was recognized at common law and translated into statutes, including Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court also rejected the argument that the suit involved a reduction of the company's capital, stating that if the issue of shares is found invalid, it is as if the shares were never issued, and no question of reduction of share capital arises.

Alleged Mala Fides and Breach of Fiduciary Duty:
The court found that the company's directors acted mala fide and in breach of their fiduciary duty by waiving the requirement of a one-month notice for the conversion of debentures into shares. The waiver was intended to increase the voting strength of the institutions at the AGM to counter the votes and proxies of the Berlia family. The court noted that no director or officer of the company was examined to refute this prima facie case. The court concluded that the institutions were privy and party to this mala fide exercise of power.

Compliance with Section 81 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court examined the compliance with Section 81, which deals with the further issue of capital. It was argued that the special resolution required under Section 81(1A) was not passed before the issue of the debentures containing the option to convert into shares, making the option clause invalid. However, the plaintiffs' counsel had stated that they would not contend that the debenture trust deed was void. The court held that the special resolution must precede the issue of debentures containing the option to convert into shares, and without such a resolution, the option is bad. However, due to the plaintiffs' counsel's statement, the constitutional argument was not permitted.

Validity of the Debenture Trust Deed and the Option to Convert Debentures into Shares:
The court found that the option to convert debentures into shares was exercised immediately after it came into existence, and there was no bar under the law to such immediate exercise. The court rejected the argument that the transaction was a purchase of shares rather than a conversion of debentures. The court also held that the debenture trust deed was not void, but the act of waiver of the one-month notice requirement was vitiated by mala fides.

Allegations of Acquiescence, Laches, and Ratification:
The court rejected the defendants' arguments of acquiescence, laches, and ratification. It was held that the plaintiffs could not have known about the act of waiver before it happened, and there was no evidence to suggest that they had knowledge or means of knowledge of the waiver. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not guilty of laches as there was no undue delay in filing the suit after acquiring the requisite knowledge. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the shareholders had ratified the act of waiver.

Conclusion:
The court declared that the entry of the names of the defendants in the company's register of members as holders of the shares was bad and illegal. The defendants were ordered to continue holding the debentures in conversion of which the shares were issued, without the option to convert any of the debentures into shares. The company was directed to rectify its register of members by deleting the names of the defendants and to carry out all necessary alterations and notifications. The defendants were also ordered to hold in trust for the company any amounts received as dividends in excess of interest at the debenture rate and to adjust these against future interest. The court awarded the plaintiffs one-half of the total costs.

← Previous Next →