9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 241 - AT - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - Determination of minimum shareholding for filing complain / petition against the company - NCLT rejected the petition - the impugned order was passed by Hon ble Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal sitting singly in the absence of the Hon ble Member (Technical). Failure to possess requisite Shareholding necessary to maintain the underlying petition - appellant possessed 19.83% shareholding in the 1st Respondent / Company at the time of filing the present petition - conduct in breach of the fiduciary duties of Directors owed towards 1st Respondent / Company as per Section 166 of the Companies Act 2013. Appellant contends that the Tribunal had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the shareholding at the time of accruing of cause of action would be determinative of the maintainability of the petition and in sequel had also held that the Appellant at the relevant point of time due to less than 10% shareholding at such time could not have maintained the petition and eventually determine the said point as well as the underlying petition against the Appellant herein. HELD THAT - Section 419(3) of the Companies Act 2013 enjoins that the powers of Tribunal shall be exercisable by Benches consisting of two Members out of whom one shall be a Judicial Member and other shall be a Technical Member . As a matter of fact the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 419 of the Companies Act 2013 points out that it shall be competent for the Members of the Tribunal authorised in this behalf to function as a Bench comprising of a single Judicial Member and exercise the powers of Tribunal in respect of such class of cases or such matters relating to such class of cases as the President may by general or special order specify. Also in the second proviso it is mentioned that if at any stage of hearing of any such case or matter it appears to the Member that the case or matter is of such nature / character that it should be Heard by a Bench consisting of two members the case or matter may be transferred by the President or as the case may be referred to him for transfer to such Bench as President may deem fit. Hence considering the importance of issues / controversies / disputes involved in a case a single member of the Tribunal may transfer or refer the matter to the President for hearing by a Bench consisting of two Members or to such Bench as the President may deem fit. It cannot be gainsaid that the Principal Bench of Tribunal shall be at New Delhi whose powers shall be exercised by Two Members it shall be competent for the Members authorised in this behalf to function as Bench consisting of a single Judicial Member in respect of such class of cases as President may by general or special order specify. This Tribunal holds that the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 in Company Petition No. 20/2016 (TP No. 248/2017) passed by the Hon ble Member (Judicial) of NCLT Bengaluru Bench sitting singly cannot be found fault with because of the fact that Section 419(3) of the Companies Act 2013 empowers the Judicial Member of the Tribunal to Hear the case based on the order dated 22.10.2019 of the NCLT New Delhi which had the Approval of President of NCLT New Delhi and hence the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Tribunal is not a nonest illegal and void ab initio one and the point is so answered. The primary plea of the Appellant is that the Learned Single Member of the Bench of the Tribunal had effectively over ruled the said order passed by the Division Bench and upheld by this Tribunal. In effect the said point according to the Appellant vitiates the impugned order of the Tribunal and hence the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Possession of shareholding - HELD THAT - This Tribunal is of the cocksure considered opinion that although the Appellant held 10% as on date of filing of the CP No.486/2018 on 06.09.2018 but in respect of the events that took place before the Appellant held 10% shareholding then it is held by this Tribunal that he had not fulfilled the qualitative criteria to sustain the Company Petition in as much as he had not possessed the requisites shares at the particular point of time when the purported cause of action arose. As such it is safely and securdly concluded by this Tribunal that the Appellant s / Petitioner s petition in CP No. 486/2018 on the file of National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru Bench on the date of filing of the petition (on 06.09.2018) is perfectly maintainable but he is precluded from adverting to the events which took place before he possessed / acquired 10% shareholding in the Company . The onus to establish Membership is on the Petitioner and it is up to him to prove that he is a Member of a Company on the day of filing of petition. When he is not a Member of Company he cannot allege Oppression to invoke Section 241 of the Companies Act 2013 against the Company as opined by this Tribunal - There is no straight jacket cast iron formula specified to define the term oppression and mismanagement . A single act may not be enough for the grant of relief of oppression and continuous course of oppressive code of conduct on the part of the Majority Shareholder is very much necessary. The onus of proof in proving the affairs of the Company were / are being conducted in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to any Members or against the public interest / or in any way prejudicial to the interest of the Company etc. and this Tribunal ongoing through the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the NCLT Bengaluru Bench in CP No. 486/BB/2018 comes to a consequent conclusion that the Appellant / Petitioner has not established to the subjective satisfaction of this Tribunal that affairs of the Company are conducted in any manner prejudicial or oppressive either to the Appellant or other shareholders / stakeholders. The ultimate conclusion arrived at by the NCLT Bengaluru Bench in dismissing the CP No. 486/BB/2018 through its order dated 27.11.2019 without costs is free from any legal flaws - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench. 2. Validity of the Postal Ballot Notice dated 10.11.2015 and the Special Resolution dated 22.12.2015. 3. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents, including the transfer of shares. 4. Compliance with statutory requirements and fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Impugned Order Dated 27.11.2019 The Appellant challenged the legality of the impugned order passed by a single Judicial Member of the NCLT, Bengaluru Bench, arguing it was void ab initio as it was not passed by a Bench comprising both a Judicial and Technical Member. However, the Tribunal held that the order dated 22.10.2019 from the Principal Bench of NCLT, New Delhi, reconstituted the Bengaluru Bench with a single Judicial Member in terms of Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant had participated in the proceedings without objection, thus acquiescing to the single-member Bench's jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed valid. Issue 2: Validity of the Postal Ballot Notice and Special Resolution The Appellant contended that the Postal Ballot Notice dated 10.11.2015 and the Special Resolution dated 22.12.2015 were void due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and insufficient disclosure. The Tribunal found that the Board of Directors had approved the issuance of the Postal Ballot Notice in its meeting on 04.11.2015, and the Explanatory Statement complied with Section 102 of the Companies Act, 2013. The majority of shareholders (91.13%) had voted in favor of the resolution, indicating informed consent. Thus, the Postal Ballot Notice and the Special Resolution were held valid. Issue 3: Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement The Appellant alleged various acts of oppression and mismanagement, including the transfer of shares by Respondents 2 to 10 to Respondents 12 and 13, constituting 39.66% of the shareholding. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant acquired shares after the purported acts of oppression and mismanagement and had not met the qualitative criteria to sustain the petition. The Tribunal also found that the share transfer complied with SEBI regulations and was not an act of oppression or mismanagement. Issue 4: Compliance with Statutory Requirements and Fiduciary Duties The Appellant argued that the Board's decision to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement and the subsequent Joint Development Agreement dated 01.01.2016 violated the Memorandum of Association and fiduciary duties. The Tribunal found that the Board had followed a transparent process, including inviting proposals from leading developers and obtaining shareholder approval through a Postal Ballot. The Joint Development Agreement was executed with Umiya Builders and Developers, who were selected through a fair process. The Tribunal held that the actions of the Board were in compliance with statutory requirements and fiduciary duties. Disposition: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal flaws in the NCLT Bengaluru Bench's order dated 27.11.2019. The connected pending IAs were also closed.
|
