Explore C.P. No.11(111)/ERB of 1998 as Company Law Board delves into allegations, balancesheets, and share issues. Understand the final order on ultra vires claims.
To file a petition u/s 397, 398 of the Act, one has to fulfil the requirement as contemplated under the above provision of law. Unless and until the above criterion is fulfilled, the petition is not maintainable. The persons who can qualify to file the petition are (i) in case the company is having a share capital, not less than 100 members; or (ii) not less than 1/10th of the total number of its members, whichever is less.
Under section 399 of the Act, statute has made it clear that 10 per cent shareholding is requisite qualification to invoke jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398 of the Act. If the joint shareholding of first petitioner has become half, then certainly this petition is short of the requisite qualification that is required under section 399 of the Act.
In the present case the petitioner No. l was removed as director and this Bench presumes that the convening and holding of general meeting in which he was removed is legal and valid. So far as para 11.3 of the reliefs is concerned that the R1-company be directed to be operated only with the joint signature of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is concerned a similar relief is sought by the applicants in the main petition at para 9.3. Therefore, pending adjudication of main petition, I do not consider it to grant the reliefs at the interim stage. So far as reliefs at para 11.4 is concerned I am not inclined to grant the stay in conducting the shareholders and Board of directors meetings which are to be conducted by the company in accordance with the law or the company may thinks fit to call the meetings in its best interest.
The charge has to be registered by filing Form 8 with the concerned RoC in terms of section 125 within a period of 30 days after the creation of the charge. The RoC may allow another 30 days time on payment of additional fee and therefore, total 60 days time is available to file the necessary forms with the RoC for creating the charge over the properties. The Act states that company has to file the necessary forms with the concerned RoC, for registration of charges. It is obvious that the lender need to take action to get it registered with RoC to safeguard their interest.
The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have removed their name without sufficient cause and without due compliance of the provisions of law and entered the name of respondent No. 3. From the pleadings it is unequivocal that there is a family settlement and the transfers have taken place pursuant to the said family settlement. However, the same could not fructify and the differences and disputes arose between them which lead to filing of these petitions. However, upon considering the factual position it is apparent that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of law in respect of transfer of shares most probably on the basis of family settlement.
The fiduciary capacity within which directors have to act enjoins duty upon them to act on behalf of the company with utmost care and skill and due diligence and in the interest of the company. More so, in a family company where even directorial complaints can be looked into. Directors have a duty to make full and honest disclosures to shareholders regarding all important matters relating to the company. In the present case a clear case of oppression has been made out, even a single act can cause continuous oppression.
The petitioners allegations that their group has been converted from a majority to a minority in shareholding and respondents representation in management has substantially been increased are found to be correct. In view of the continuous effects of such oppressive acts, to undo the effects and to regulate the affairs of the R-1-company in future, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
In the instant case, the respondent-company failed to file Form No. 8 with the concerned RoC. Therefore, the RoC, is directed to exercise his powers under section 234(1) by calling information with regard to filing of Form No. 8 and direct the respondent-company to make good the default in non-filing of e-form No. 8 under section 125. In case the respondent-company fails to comply with the order, the RoC may take appropriate action against the respondent-company in accordance with law.
The petitioners claiming to hold 4132 partly paid ordinary shares of Rs.100/-each and 3065 fully paid preference shares of Rs.100/-each in M/S Tinplate Dealers Association Private Limited ( the company) have filed this petition under Sections 397/398 and Section 111(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company and seeking rectification of the register of members. The main allegations relate to issue of further shares in the company in exclusion of the petitioners, issue of bonus shares contrary to the provisions of law, removal of the petitioners 1 and 2 as directors of the company, appointment of new directors on the Board etc. and they have sought for consequential reliefs.
