Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 534 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - Held that:- Mismanagement of funds done at the instance of the Respondents who have failed to comply with the conditions of the bank vis-a-vis the loan accounts. In addition to the aforementioned, according to the contentions of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had at an earlier point of time through a letter dated 21st October, 2010 had requested clarification from R1 regarding the irregularities and the illegalities that had arisen in the Company by virtue of the appointments of managing director, director and further issue and allotment of shares. It can be seen that the increase in authorized share capital of the Company and the subsequent issue and allotment of further shares to the Respondents was done in violation of the Articles of Association and the Companies Act, 1956. The appointment of R3 as a director and R2 as the managing director was also done in violation of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Articles of Association of the Company. The Respondents have not held either board meetings or general meetings and have failed to serve upon notices to the Petitioner regarding the same. Additionally, the Respondents have denied access to the Petitioner into the factory premises and have not regularized the Company's account maintained with the Punjab National Bank and defaults in payment of dues against the loans sanctioned by The Punjab National Bank, are apparent, which indicates towards acts of mismanagement. Further the Petitioner has also contended that the statutory auditors appointed by the Respondents for the Company have not reported any qualification on the operation and financial transaction of the Company, or about related party transaction, illegal allotment of shares, illegal appointment of directors and gross violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In the present Petition, since the Petitioner has been reduced to an insignificant minority due to the acts of the Respondents whereby they increased the authorized share capital of the Company and issued and allotted further shares of the Company without notifying the Petitioner about the same, such acts of Respondents constitute acts of oppression. Therefore, in the light of the contentions and pleading of the parties, it is clear that there is a case of oppression against the Petitioner by the Respondents. Petition is allowed. The Respondents are hereby directed to reverse the change in the authorized capital to the initial amount and undo the issue and allotment of shares to the Respondents. It is hereby also being directed that R3's appointment as the director of the Company and R2's appointment as the managing director be reversed and a managing director be appointed in the Company through proper procedure as per statutory provisions.
|