9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1801 - Tri - Companies LawJurisdiction - it is sought that Board of Directores of First respondent be superseded by a Committee constituted by this Hon ble Board consisting of a nominee of the petitioner a nominee of the respondent and an Administrator/independent Director/ Specal Officer appointed by this Hon ble Board to take charge over the management and affairs of the company in terms of a scheme of management and affairs of the compay in terms of the scheme of the management framed by this Hon ble Board which would be in super-session of all agreements which purport to vest parties with rights in affairs of first respondent and of all books papers records and documents of the company as well as assets and its properties. Held that - The Board of Directors is fully empowered to take the impugned action - The petitioner failed to make out any case so as to interfere in the issue by the Tribunal - the present petition liable to be dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core issues considered by the Tribunal in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Notices and Board Meeting Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Companies Act, 1956 and the Articles of Association of the 1st Respondent Company govern the procedures for issuing notices and conducting Board Meetings. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the notices issued for the Board Meeting on 02.09.2010 were in compliance with the Articles of Association and the Companies Act. The quorum for the meeting was maintained, and the procedures followed were consistent with the statutory requirements. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the notices were duly served to the nominee directors of the petitioner, who chose not to attend the meeting. The meeting was conducted with the required quorum, and the decisions were made in line with the Articles of Association. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the provisions of the Companies Act and the Articles of Association to determine that the meeting was validly convened and the decisions made therein were legally binding. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the meeting notice was insufficient and the decisions made were not valid. However, the Tribunal found these arguments unconvincing as the procedures were followed as per the legal requirements. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the notices and the Board Meeting were conducted in accordance with the law, and the decisions made during the meeting were valid. Issue 2: Validity of the Termination of the Development Agreement Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the relevant provisions of the Articles of Association were considered to determine the legality of the termination of the Development Agreement. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that the termination of the agreement was within the powers of the Board of Directors as per the Articles of Association, which allowed the Board to make decisions in the best interest of the Company. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Board of Directors had the authority to terminate the agreement and that the termination was ratified in a duly convened Board Meeting. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the provisions of Section 293 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956, which restricts the powers of the Board in certain circumstances, but found that these restrictions did not apply to the case at hand. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the termination was oppressive and prejudicial to their interests. However, the Tribunal found that the termination was a business decision made in the interest of the Company and not an act of oppression. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Development Agreement was valid and did not constitute oppression under Sections 397/398. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that:
|
