A Company founded and run to commit fraud is liable to be wound up.

Devas Multimedia vs. Antrix Corporation

The facts:

On 28.07.2003, Antrix entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Forge Advisors, LLC, a Virginia Corporation. The intent, as spelt out in the MOU, was to make both parties
become “strong and vital partners in evaluating and implementing major new satellite applications across diverse sectors including agriculture, education, media and telecommunications”.

On 22.03.2004, Forge Advisors made a presentation proposing an Indian joint venture, to launch what came to be known as “DEVAS” (Digitally Enhanced Video and Audio Services). It was projected in the said proposal that DEVAS platform will be capable of delivering multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile devices tailored to the needs of various market segments such as (i) consumer segment, comprising of entertainment and
information services to digital multimedia consoles in cars and vehicles; (ii) commercial segment, comprising of high value information services to Commercial Information Devices in
commercial transport vehicles; and (iii) social segment, comprising of Developmental Information Services to Rural Information kiosks in underserved areas. (This platform was never created and is not in existence even today)

The proposal dated 15.04.2004 indicated that DEVAS was conceived as a new National Service, expected to be launched by the end of 2006, that would deliver video, multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile receivers in vehicles and mobile phones across India. The proposal contemplated the formation of a joint venture and an obligation on the part of ISRO and Antrix to invest in one operational SBand satellite with a ground space segment to be leased to the joint venture. In return, ISRO and Antrix were to receive lease payments of USD 11 million annually for a period of 15 years.

On 17.12.2004 Devas Multimedia Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Devas’ or the ‘company in liquidation’) was incorporated as a private company under the Companies Act, 1956. Immediately thereafter, Antrix entered into an Agreement with the said company on 28.01.2005. The Agreement was titled as “Agreement for the lease of space segment capacity on ISRO/Antrix SBand spacecraft by DEVAS”.

Continue reading →

Insolvency Process: Effect on personal guarantee of Director.

The sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by Section 31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor’s liability.As to the nature and extent of the liability, much would depend on the terms of the guarantee itself.

Approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor (of a corporate debtor) of her or his liabilities under the contract of guarantee. As held by this court, the release or discharge of a principal borrower from the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an involuntary process, i.e. by operation of law, or due to liquidation or insolvency proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract.

Read Full Judgement:

Click to access 26016_2020_37_1501_28029_Judgement_21-May-2021.pdf

Judicial Review of removal of nominated Executive Chairman of the Private Company

Removal of Cyrus Mistry from the Board of Tata Sons:

Companies Act, 2013 is focused on listed and unlisted public companies:

The requirement under Section 149(4) to have at least one third of the total number of Directors as independent Directors applies only to every listed public company. The requirement under Section 151 to have one Director elected by small shareholders is also applicable only to listed companies. The requirement to constitute an Audit Committee in terms of Section 177(1), a Nomination and Remuneration Committee and the Stakeholders Relationship Committee in terms of Section 178(1) are also only on listed public companies.

Duties of a nominated Director:

It is necessary that we balance the duty of a Director,under Section 166(2) to act in the best interests of the company, its employees, the shareholders, the community and the protection of environment, with the duties of a Director nominated by an Institution including a public charitable trust. They have fiduciary duty towards 2 companies, one of which is the shareholder which nominated them and the other, is the company to whose Board they are nominated.

The question as to (i) what is in the interest of the company, (ii) what is in the best interest of the members of the company as a whole and (iii) what is in the interest of a nominator,all lie in locations whose borders and dividing lines are always blurred. If philosophical rhetoric is kept aside for a moment, it willbe clear that success and profit making are at the core of business enterprises. Therefore, the best interest of the majority shareholders need not necessarily be in conflict with the interest of the minority or best interest of the members of the company as a whole, unless there is siphoning of or diversion. Such a question does not arise when the majority shareholders happen to be charitable Trusts engaged in philanthropic activities. It is good to wish that the creation gets liberated from the creator, so long as the creator does not have any control or ability to manipulate. In the corporate world, democracy cannot be seen as an ugly expression,after using the very same democratic process for the appointment of directors.

Concept of Minority Shareholder:

The Statute confers upon the members of a company limited by shares, a right to vote in a general meeting. And this right is proportionate to his shareholding as per Section 47(1)(b). Section 152 which contains provisions for the appointment of Directors, does not confer any right of proportionate representation on the Board of any company,be it public or private.

The maximum extent, to which the Parliament has gone under the 2013 Act, is to make a provision under Section 151,enabling “a listed company” to have one Director elected by such small shareholders in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.

One must be careful to note that both under Section 252(1) of the 1956 Act and under Section 151 of the 2013 Act, the spotlight was only on “small shareholders” and not on “minority shareholders” like the S.P. Group which holds around 18.37%.

Proportionate Representation on Board of Company:

Continue reading →

Transfer of windiing up proceedings from High Court to NCLT

Locus Standi of Creditor:

If any creditor is aggrieved by any decision of the official liquidator, he is entitled under the 1956 Act to challenge the same before the Company Court. Once he does that, he becomes a party to the proceeding, even by the plain language of the section. Instead of asking a party to adopt such a circuitous route and then take recourse to the 5th proviso to section 434(1)(c), it would be better to recognise the right of such a party to seek transfer directly.

Object of Insolvency Act:

The object of IBC will be stultified if parallel proceedings are allowed to go on in different fora. If the Allahabad High Court is allowed to proceed with the winding up and NCLT is allowed to proceed with an enquiry into the application under Section 7 IBC, the entire object of IBC will be thrown to the winds.

Proceedings transferred:

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioner herein will come within the definition of the expression “party” appearing in the 5th proviso to Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the petitioner is entitled to seek a transfer of the pending winding up proceedings against the first respondent, to the NCLT. It is important to note that the restriction under Rules 5 and 6 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 relating to the stage at which a transfer could be ordered, has no application to the case of a transfer covered by the 5th proviso to clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 434. Therefore, the impugned order of the High court rejecting the petition for transfer on the basis of Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is flawed.

[Source: KALEDONIA JUTE AND FIBRES PVT. LTD. v. AXIS NIRMAN AND INDUSTRIES LTD. decided by SC on 9th November 2020]

Mismanagement of Company and Oppression of Minority Shareholder: Locus

Family dispute about ownership of shares:

Merely disowning a son by late father or by the family, is not going to deprive him of any right in the property to which he may be otherwise entitled in accordance with the law. The pertinent question needs to be tried in a civil suit and adjudicated finally, it cannot be decided by NCLT in proceedings in question. Hence, we refrain from deciding the aforesaid question raised on behalf of the appellants in the present proceedings. In the facts and circumstances, it would not be appropriate to permit respondent No.1 to continue the proceedings for mismanagement initiated under sections 241 and 242, that too in the absence of having 10% shareholding and firmly establishing his rights in civil proceedings to the extent he is claiming in the shareholding of the companies.

Civil Dispute:

With regard to the dispute as to right, title, and interest in the securities, the finding of the civil Court is going to be final and conclusive and binding on parties. The decision of such a question has to be eschewed in instant proceedings.It would not be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant a waiver to the respondent of the requirement under the proviso to section 244 of the Act, as ordered by the NCLAT.

We are of the opinion that the proceedings before the NCLT filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act should not be entertained because of the pending civil dispute and considering the minuscule extent of holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired after filing a civil suit in company securities, of respondent no. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in order to maintain the proceedings, the respondent should have waited for the decision of the right, title and interest, in the civil suit concerning shares in question.The entitlement of respondent No.1 is under a cloud of pending civil dispute. We deem it appropriate to direct the dropping of the proceedings filed before the NCLT regarding oppression and mismanagement under sections 241 and 242 of the Act with the liberty to file afresh, on all the questions, in case of necessity, if the suit is decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and shareholding of respondent No.1 increases to the extent of 10% required under section 244.

[Source: Aruna Oswal vs. Pankaj Oswal decided by SC on 6th July 2020]

Investigation u/s 212 of Companies Act:

Investigation into the affairs of the Company:

There is no denying the fact that, the Competent Authority vide its order dated 20.06.2018 directed the SFIO to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the subject entities, in public interest. There is also no quarrel with the circumstance that, the period specified by the Competent Authority in the said order dated 20.06.2018 lapsed on 19.09.2018. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that, the SFIO sought an extension of time, from the Competent Authority, to carry out further investigation under the mandate of the provisions of Section 212 of the said Act, only on 13.12.2018, admittedly two and half months after the period granted to them by the Competent Authority for the said purpose, had come to an end by efflux of time.

Continue reading “Investigation u/s 212 of Companies Act:” →

Powers of National Company Law Tribunal

Effect of Rule 5

The real reason for omission of Rule 5(2) in the substituted Rule 5 is because it is necessary to state, only once, on the repeal of the SIC Act, that proceedings under Section 20 of the SIC Act shall continue to be dealt with by the High Court. It was unnecessary to continue Rule 5(2) even after 29.06.2017 as on 15.12.2016, all pending cases under Section 20 of the SIC Act were to continue to be dealt with by the High Court before which such cases were pending. Since there could be no opinion by the BIFR under Section 20 of the SIC Act after 01.12.2016, when the SIC Act was repealed, it was unnecessary to continue Rule 5(2) as, on 15.12.2016, all pending proceedings under Section 20 of the SIC Act were to continue with the High Court and would continue even thereafter. This is further made clear by the amendment to Section 434(1)(c), with effect from 17.08.2018, where any party to a winding up proceeding pending before a Court immediately before this date may file an application for transfer of such proceedings, and the Court, at that stage, may, by order, transfer such proceedings to the NCLT. The proceedings so transferred would then be dealt with by the NCLT as an application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Code. It is thus clear that under the scheme of Section 434 (as amended) and Rule 5 of the 2016 Transfer Rules, all proceedings under Section 20 of the SIC Act pending before the High Court are to continue as such until a party files an application before the High Court for transfer of such proceedings post 17.08.2018. Once this is done, the High Court must transfer such proceedings to the NCLT which will then deal with such proceedings as an application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Code.

Continue reading “Powers of National Company Law Tribunal” →

Strangling the minority shareholders.

Oppression of minority shareholders:

Amendment in Articles of Association

A public company was in urgent need of further capital which the majority of the members who held 98% of the shares were willing to supply if they could buy out the minority. They tried persuasion of the minority to sell shares to them but the minority refused. They therefore proposed to pass a Special Resolution adding to the Articles a clause whereby any shareholder was bound to transfer his shares upon a request in writing of the holders of 98% of the issued capital.

The court held that this was an attempt to add a clause which will enable the majority to expropriate the shares of the minority who had bought them when there was no such power. Such an attempt was not for the benefit of the company as a whole but for the majority. An injunction was therefore granted to restrain the company from passing the proposed resolution.

[Brown v. British Abrasive Wheel Co. (1919) 1 Ch. 290]

This was one of the earliest case of protection of minority shareholders from the oppressive majority of shareholders.