Corporate Law : In a landmark judgment, MP HC rules trial courts cannot accuse under Section 319 CrPC without clear evidence. Detailed analysis of...
Company Law : There can be disputes between majority group and minority shareholders in any Company and these disputes come very frequently in c...
Company Law : In any litigation, the Court or the authority adjudicating the matter can pass interim orders and the matter will get finally disp...
Corporate Law : Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a relief to the minority against the majority if the majority indulges in the ...
Company Law : The study of various judgments of High Court and Supreme Court under section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 speak volumes about th...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that mediation family settlement upheld since entire sum as per consent terms duly received. Accordingly, the app...
Goods and Services Tax : Read the detailed judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing a petition seeking police custody for a TDP leader's son in an ...
Income Tax : Jharkhand High Court held that initiation of prosecution proceedings under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in absence of any d...
Corporate Law : NCLAT Delhi held that the NCLT has no jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of the `Gift Deed’ more so when `fraud’...
Company Law : It was observed by the CLB that if the Appellants failed to cooperate with NHEL for the determination of the value of the occupied...
The case of Chatterjee Petrochem (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. [2011] 110 SCL 107 is clearly distinguishable as in that case when the company was in dire need of funds the Chatterjee Group had failed to keep its promise of providing funds as it obtained a loan raising the debt equity ratio of the company. These circumstances were taken into consideration for reduction of Chatterjee group into a minority. In the present case firstly the enforcement of MOU dated 18/05/2007 is not in consideration in the present order and secondly the facts borne out from the record clearly show that raising of authorised share capital was not on account of raising immediate funds for the completion of the hotel/resort project but was mainly for reducing the shareholding of the Petitioner to an abject minority.
The contention urged by the Applicant that the Scheme of Demerger must necessarily comply with Section 2(19AA) which is meant for availing tax concession cannot be read as a mandatory requirement for all schemes of amalgamation / arrangement/de-merger under Sections 391/392/394 of 1956 Act . The said provision cannot be read and interpreted to include assets/units/undertakings/business belonging to the respondent-IRSL which were never transferred or intended to be transferred to IRTL and which are not mentioned in the Scheme of Arrangement.
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.
There can be disputes between majority group and minority shareholders in any Company and these disputes come very frequently in closely held companies or Private Limited Companies. The Companies Act, 1956 provides certain rights to the shareholders
In any litigation, the Court or the authority adjudicating the matter can pass interim orders and the matter will get finally disposed of. Once the matter is dispose of finally, there ends the litigation and the final order can be executed. If there is a provision for review having limited scope, the court can review its order. This is the procedure in any case; be it a suit for recovery of money, be it a petition seeking divorce, be it a petition for compensation under Motor Vehicle Law and be it a Writ Petition.
Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a relief to the minority against the majority if the majority indulges in the oppressive acts and the acts of mismanagement. It is not that every shareholder can avail the remedy available under section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 and section 399 specifically deals with the issue as qualification to file a petition under section 397/398 of the Act. Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 substantially provides as follows:
The study of various judgments of High Court and Supreme Court under section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 speak volumes about the complications in dealing with the cases of ‘oppression and mismanagement’ under section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956. There were many judgments under section 397/398 explaining the powers of Company Law Board, meaning of ‘oppression’, powers under section 402, the powers of Company Law Board in passing orders under section 402 in order to regulate affairs of the company in future, the responsibility of the board to hear all the necessary parties to the proceeding, the issue of public interest, the issue of dead-lock, the issue of applying the principles of partnership in closely held private companies, the scope of section 399, the issue of granting ‘consent’ by members, the issues of maintainability and the procedure to be followed by the Company Law Board etc.
I have been continuously focusing at the complications in the corporate world and especially about the protection to the shareholders in a Company. I have seen cases where the majority does everything in order to deny the rightful share of the minority shareholders or the group; or to make the company a shell company.
Decision of a company has to rest on views of majority; in case of disagreement by the minority, remedy lies u/s 397 & 398 and not in Civil Court. When a case falls within four corners of section 397 and/or section 398, ordinary civil court’s jurisdiction would stand barred to deal with such a dispute
