The Constitutional Courts have laid-down many important principles with regard to a proceeding of ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Of late, there is a change as to how a petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 to be decided. Earlier, there used to be much emphasis on technical issues under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 rather the object of the provision. Now-a-days, while some principles can never be ignored under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the emphasis is more on the object of the provisions and towards putting ‘an end to the matters complained of’. In each case, there are certain issues being raised by the parties or professionals dealing with a case under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Few points normally raised in a proceeding under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 are as follows:
1.The majority would be taking an argument that the petition under section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not maintainable and this will come where the minority alleges ‘oppression’ like issuance of further share-capital resulting a group’s holding go below 10% of the share-capital.
This issue of maintainability is not being decided at the initial stage now unless there is a clear case for majority.
2. The majority will also be taking a stand that there is no case of ‘oppression and mis-management’ even prima facie. They argue that when there is no case of ‘oppression and mismanagement’ even prima facie, the petition is liable to dismissed as not maintainable.
This is a very complex issue to decide. Petitions are at times filed to harass the majority shareholders. But, it would be very difficult to give a finding that the petition is not maintainable at the initial stage itself and in most of the cases, the Company Law Board will keep the matter pending for final disposal and it may restrain granting any ‘interim orders’ except interim orders requiring transparency in the functioning of the Company.
3. The majority shareholders or the Company will also be taking a stand at times that the issues raised by the minority shareholders can only be decided by Civil Courts. This argument will often come when the minority shareholders question an agreement or arrangement entered into by the company with third parties or sister concerns. This argument will also come when the minority enters into company through an understanding or agreement to bring additional investment and subsequent allotment of equity. Then, respective parties will be arguing based on the clauses in the agreement or the understanding.
4. When the minority questions the decisions taken by the majority in the Board and the decisions like induction of new directors and even business related decisions. The majority then arguing that their decisions are prudent and in the interest of the company and such decisions can never be questioned.
a. The minority will be defending the maintainability of their petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and their argument of maintainability is accepted in most of the times. The minority will be pleading for interim measures towards the protection of their interest pending the disposal of the main company petition.
b. The minority will always be pleading that the Company Law Board can exercise enormous powers in order to ‘put an end to the matters complained of’ and in the ‘public interest’.
c. The minority will be emphasizing at their interest in the Company and oppose the removal of directors etc. and induction of new directors. This argument is accepted in most of the cases and removal or an effort to remove a particular director is normally stayed when there is a prima facie case of ‘oppression and mismanagement’.
d. The minority will also be demanding transparency in the functioning of the Company and will demand for production of books and records of the Company in most of the Cases. The minority will also take advantage of the internal issues of the Company like not maintaining proper books and negligence in adhering to usual ‘corporate governance’. The minority will be linking the functioning of the Company to ‘mis-management’ though the actually mis-management is difficult to establish in most of the cases.
e. The minority will also be emphasizing on taking the full control of the company or selling their shares to majority and coming-out of the Company. In most of the cases, company disputes get settled through an arrangement of ‘buying or selling’ shares during the pendency of the Company Petition.
While the above are the usual points pleaded by the parties before the Company Law Board, several other issues are also pleaded in the course.
In a recent appeal decided by the Supreme Court on section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the submissions of the prominent corporate lawyers in
All usual legal principles under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 are pleaded by the prominent lawyers’ on-behalf of their clients. The extract of the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chatterjee Petrochem (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.& Others reported in CDJ 2011 SC 1072, is as follows:
“60. Mr. Desai submitted that all the aforesaid submissions made were misconceived and that in order to file a complaint under Section 397 of the above Act, the complainant had to be a Member (emphasis supplied) of the Company, having the requisite standing under Section 399 of the Act. It was also urged that the conduct complained of had to be such as to be oppressive to the complainant/complainants as shareholders/members. Inasmuch as, CP (I) PL was not a member of HPL, it could not have filed and maintained the complaint under Section 397 before the Company Law Board. Mr. Desai submitted that it was no doubt true that upon transfer of the shares, the transferee became the beneficial owner thereof, but till the shares were registered in the Company's Share Register and subsequently, in the records of the Registrar of Companies, the transferee did not acquire the right to vote at a meeting of the Company on the basis of acquisition of the said shares. Mr. Desai submitted that for all practical purposes the transferor remained in control of the transferred shares and also enjoyed the right to vote on the strength thereof. The failure of the transferor to have the shares registered with the Company, did not amount to an act of oppression of the Company, but was an area of dispute between the transferor and the transferee and it could not be said that the inaction of the transferor amounted to oppression within the meaning of Section 397 of the Companies Act. Mr. Desai also submitted that the oppression complained of should be such as would lead to a conclusion that it would be just and equitable to wind up the Company under Section 433(f) of the above Act.
61. Referring to the decision of this Court in Shanti Prasad Jain's case (supra), Mr. Desai submitted that in the said decision it had been emphasized that the oppression complained of had to be shown as having been brought about by a majority of members exercising a predominant voting power in the conduct of the Company's affairs and must relate to the manner in which the affairs of the Company were being conducted. Such conduct must also be shown as being oppressive to a minority of the members in relation to the shareholding in the Company. It was also emphasized that although, the facts disclosed might appear to furnish grounds for the making of a winding up order under the “just and equitable” principle, such facts must be relevant in disclosing that the winding up order would unfairly prejudice the minority members in relation to the shareholders. Referring to the use of the expression “legitimate expectation” by Lord Justice Hoffmann sitting in the Court of Appeal, in the decision rendered in Ebrahimi's case (supra), Mr. Desai submitted that subsequently in the case of Saul D Harrison & Sons Plc (1995) 1 BCLC 14, after referring to the decision in Ebrahimi's case (supra), Lord Justice Hoffmann held that such an expression had been borrowed from public law to describe the correlative right in the shareholder to which such a relationship might give rise.
62. Mr. Desai also urged that the decision in Kalinga Tubes Ltd.'s case (supra) was also relied upon by this Court in the Needle Industries case (supra), wherein it was held that on a true construction of Section 397, an unwise, inefficient or careless conduct of a Director in the performance of his duties cannot give rise to a claim for relief under that Section. The person complaining of oppression must show that he has been constrained to submit to a conduct which lacks in probity, conduct which is unfair to him and which causes prejudice to him in the exercise of his legal and proprietary rights as a shareholder. As to the findings of both the Company Law Board and the High Court in relation to the applicability of Section 398 of the above Act, Mr. Desai submitted that since both the Courts had held that the same was not attracted, there was really little to add to the observations of both the forums that there was absolutely no reason to say that GoWB and WBIDC with their associates were conducting the affairs of HPL in any manner prejudicial to HPL's interests. The allotment made in favour of IOC was, in fact, in the interest of the Company and the allotment of shares to IOC was part of the terms and conditions of the debt restructuring package.
63. Regarding the failure of WBIDC to register the 155 million shares in favour of CP(I)PL, Mr. Desai submitted that, in fact, there was no pleading in that regard in the Company Petition filed by CP(I)PL. Accordingly, neither could CP(I)PL maintain the Company Petition, not being a member of HPL, nor could any prayer have been made for a direction upon the Company to register the said shares in the name of CP(I)PL. Mr. Desai pointed out that though such a pleading was subsequently included in the Rejoinder Affidavit, no application was ever made for amendment of the pleadings and the prayers in the Company Petition.
64. To support his submissions, Mr. Desai referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Re. Bengal Luxmi Cotton Mills Ltd. [1969 CWN 137], Sangramsingh P. Gaekwad & Ors. Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekward & Ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 314], R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. A & F Harvey Ltd. & Ors. [967 (37) Comp. Case 212], wherein the principles laid down in the Needle Industries case (supra) had been followed. Mr. Desai submitted that the 155 million shares transferred to CP(I)PL by WBIDC continued to be held by WBIDC and were never lodged with the Company.
65. Lastly, on the question of allotment of 150 million shares to IOC, Mr. Desai referred to the observations of the Company Law Board which recorded that such allotment could not be questioned by the Chatterjee Group, since the same was neither clandestine nor surreptitious and was under contemplation from 2000 itself and the idea of inducting IOC was initiated by Dr. Chatterjee himself, as would be evident from the letter dated 24th March, 2000, addressed to the Chief Minister, as the Company was in dire need of funds. Mr. Desai pointed out that the said view was endorsed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by observing that the Chatterjee Group had failed to produce any evidence with regard to the allegations that the allotment of shares to IOC was pursuant to a clandestine agreement to permit IOC to participate in the management of HPL.
66. Mr. Desai submitted that the case made out by the appellants before the Company Law Board was not only devoid of substance, but was entirely misconceived, since the same was not maintainable at the instance of CP(I)PL which was not a member of HPL. Even the allegations of oppression remained unproved, since the entire content related to the transaction between WBIDC and CP(I)PL, which was not the act of the Company, as contemplated in Section 397, but a private dispute between two groups of shareholders. Mr. Desai submitted that the appeals were liable to be dismissed with appropriate costs.
67. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) pointed out that a loan agreement had been entered into between HPL and IDBI for a sum of Rs.12,500 lakhs and in the event the borrower defaulted on the loan, the Bank would have the right to convert upto 20% of the loan into fully paid up equity of the Company. The Bank was also given the right to appoint a Nominee Director on the Board of HPL. Mr. Dave submitted that in 2003 the question of restructuring of the debt came up for consideration and in its meeting held on 8th August, 2003, the Company agreed to allow IDBI to refer the Company to the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) Cell with a debt restructuring proposal. Subsequently, on a 22nd January, 2004, at a meeting of the Empowered Group, Dr. Chatterjee agreed for conversion of debt to equity to the extent of Rs.140 crores. Thereafter, on 23rd March, 2004, the Board of Directors of HPL approved a CDR package and Dr. Chatterjee's proposal to convert debt to equity. Dr. Chatterhee was, in fact, interested to give effect to the same. Mr. Dave submitted that subsequently the debt restructuring plan failed to fructify and the Bank was informed by the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, on 27th July, 2005, that the permission which had been granted in the credit restructuring package, be treated as annulled.
68. In the pending proceeding before the CLB, Chatterjee Petrochemicals Ltd. had got an interim order in its favour staying further allotment of shares of Rs.135 crores to IDBI. However, IDBI was neither a party to the proceedings nor was any relief, either final or interim in nature sought against IDBI. But by virtue of the interim order of injunction passed by the CLB, the allotment of shares to IDBI was stayed, as that would have reduced the Chatterjee Group to a minority. Mr. Dave submitted that the application filed by IDBI before the CLB was kept in abeyance and no order was passed thereupon as it was likely to hamper the progress of negotiation. Mr. Dave submitted that the writ petition filed by IDBI against the said order before the Delhi High Court was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Ultimately, in its final judgment dated 31st January, 2007, the CLB gave directions to the effect that Chatterjee Group would purchase 155 million shares from GoWB/WBIDC at a minimum price of Rs.28.80 per share. It was also directed that the 155 million shares transferred to the Chatterjee Group would be dematerialized and registered and that the allotment to the IOC would remain.
69. Mr. Dave submitted that the question of CP(I)PL having any legitimate expectation did not arise and such a case was not also pleaded before the Board. Furthermore, since nothing had been proved before the Board that the conduct of GoWB and WBIDC was such as to justify an order of just and equitable winding up, no order could have been passed by the Board on the Company Petition filed by the appellants and the learned Single Judge of the High Court rightly allowed the appeals preferred against the order of the Board.
70. Appearing for the Respondent No.16, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that nowhere in the Company Petition had any allegation been made against the Managing Director as to his involvement in any manner in the acts of oppression alleged to have been committed against the complainant. Accordingly, as had been held by the CLB in its final order dated 31st January, 2007, the Company Petition, though filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, was essentially one under Section 397 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the said finding of the CLB had been duly upheld by the High Court.
71. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the question raised by the Chatterjee Group with regard to the employment of Mr. Bhowmik as the Managing Committee was without any basis whatsoever, since he was appointed unanimously by the Board of Directors consisting of the nominees of the different shareholders. Mr. Ahmed also pointed out that the Respondent No.16 had been responsible for the resurrection of HPL from the brink of financial disaster which had been occasioned by the failure of the promoters to infuse equity into the Company. It was only after assessment of his performance during the initial two year period of his tenure that the Board of HPL reappointed him for a further period of 3 years, inspite of the objection from the Chatterjee Group.
72. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the Respondent No.16 has moved I.A.Nos.25-28 of 2009 for a direction upon the Company to pay his arrears of salary as per the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 28th May, 2008, for the period covering 29th March, 2005 to 31st March, 2007. A further prayer has also been made to fix the pay of the said Respondent for the period from 1st April, 2007, till 31st March, 2010, at a rate as might be deemed just, proper and reasonable.
73. As far as the Tatas are concerned, it was submitted that the Tata Group was one of the original promoters of HPL and continues to hold more than 2% of the shares in the Company. It was submitted that the Tatas were keen to see HPL flourishing and had, accordingly, between 1994 and 2000 made significant infusion of funds into HPL, including a sum of Rs.11.89 crores which was given as an interest free loan. Even in 2000 when the Company was in dire financial straits, the Tatas brought in their share of Rs.35.71 crores along with other shareholders, except for the Chatterjee Group which failed to bring in its share of Rs.107.14 crores. It was made clear that the Tata Group had no faith in the Chatterjee Group since from the very inception of HPL the Chatterjee Group wanted control of HPL, without making any effective contribution at times when such contribution was most needed and had, therefore, worked against the interest of the Company, its shareholders and the public at large.
74. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared for the Government of West Bengal and its officials, urged that the relief prayed for in the Company Petition for specific relief, could not be granted under Section 397 of the Companies Act.
Since the said question had been adequately dealt with on behalf of WBIDC, Mr. Venugopal chose to deal with the directions given by the CLB to the GoWB to disinvest its entire shareholding in HPL, which was a Company set up in public interest and for which a huge extent of land had been acquired for the public purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, by setting up a Petro Chemical Complex at Haldia. Mr. Venugopal contended that it was settled law that the decision of the Government to disinvest or not to disinvest was not in the realm of public law and was not, therefore, amenable to challenge or interference, unless it amounted to an abuse of power by the Government.
75. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the order and directions of the CLB would exclude the State Government from having any future role to play in the running and management of HPL. Learned counsel submitted that in a matter of this nature, the public interest should have been considered first before such directions are given. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the proceedings under Section 397 of the Companies Act should not have been allowed to be made a vehicle for relief which was available to the Chatterjee Group under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was also submitted that the Company Law Board erred in applying the principles of private law in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Sections 397/398 and 402 of the Companies Act, since the decision of the State Government not to disinvest would have to be decided by applying the public law in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, Mr. Venugopal referred to the decision of this Court in BALCO Employees'
76. Mr. K.K. Venugopal submitted that from the very inception, GoWB had played a major role in conceptualizing and setting up of HPL with the primary object of industrial development of the region in particular, and the State in general and subserving the underlying public interest. Mr. Venugopal submitted that HPL had been conceived as a showcase project of the GoWB. It was only because of the active role of the State Government that it was also possible to acquire a total of 1031.305 acres of land for the project at Haldia, without any trouble and disturbance, from the year 1973 onwards. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the direction given by the CLB would be against the very grain of the concept of a Joint Venture between WBIDC, which was owned by GoWB, and the R.P. Goenka Group (RPG) and subsequently, with the exit of the RPG Group, the Tata Group as well as the CP(M)C. It was also submitted that even the financial institutions, namely, IDBI and SBI, etc., who had a total stake of Rs.2989 crores in HPL, drew great comfort from the continued presence of the State Government and its active participation in the management of HPL. On the other hand, on several occasions the very same financial institutions had expressed their concern regarding the capability and intentions of the Chatterjee Group in managing the Company and inducting funds as necessary for the growth and development thereof. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the acts of oppression alleged by the Chatterjee Group and the relief claimed by them, apart from being based on alleged breach of contract, aimed at invoking the jurisdiction of the CLB under Section 397 read with Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, to compel the Government to disinvest its shareholding in HPL. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the CLB did not have the jurisdiction to grant such relief and, in any event, in view of the overriding public interest, no relief should be granted to the appellant in the instant appeals.
77. Mr. Anil Dewan, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared for Mr. Tarun Das, who was functioning as the Chairman of HPL, adopted the submissions made by Mr. Desai and Mr. Venugopal and urged that the Company Petition itself was not maintainable as it had been filed by a Company which was not a member of HPL, despite being the owner of 155 million shares thereof. Mr. Dewan submitted that instead of assisting the Company in meeting its financial liabilities, the appellants not only failed to infuse equity into the Company but also confined their focus on acquiring only 51% of the shareholding in order to maintain its control over the management of the Company. Mr. Dewan submitted that the judgment of the High Court did not call for any interference in the instant proceedings.
78. In continuation of Mr. Desai's submissions, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2, reiterated the factual aspect of the case as portrayed by Mr. Desai. Mr. Sundaram, however, urged that the stand now being taken by the Chatterjee Group that the induction of IOC into HPL had adversely affected their interest and had reduced the Chatterjee Group to a minority shareholder in the Company, it was, in fact, Dr. Chatterjee himself, who had initiated the idea of allotting 150 million shares to IOC. Dr. Chatterjee was the Chairman of the Committee which prepared and sent the offer of allotment to IOC which was accepted by its return letter enclosing a cheque for Rs.150 crores in favour of HPL. Between April, 2005 and July, 2005, eight draft Share Purchase Agreements were exchanged between the Chatterjee Group and the GoWB regarding sale of the shares held by WBIDC to CP(M)C. However, the Chatterjee Group never seemed to be in a position to complete the transaction and repeatedly asked for the inclusion of fresh conditions, such as a pre-condition that IOC should not be allotted any shares of HPL. In the meantime, having accepted the offer of allotment of 150 million shares and having sent the price for the same to HPL, IOC sent legal notices to HPL calling upon the Company to issue and allot the said 150 million shares to IOC and to credit the same to the account of IOC after dematerialization.
79. Mr. Sundaram submitted that in the aforesaid cauldron of events, the GoWB wrote to the Chatterjee Group on 27th July, 2005, stating that it had decided to defer its proposal to disinvest shares in favour of the Chatterjee Group as it was not in a position to conclude matters. On account of the severe financial crunch being faced by HPL and in view of the stand of IOC, which was the main supplier of Naphtha to HPL, on 2nd August, 2005, HPL allotted 150 million shares to IOC and a return of allotment was also filed with the Registrar of Companies in respect thereof. On 3rd August, 2005, the cheque given to IOC for Rs.150 crores was encashed by HPL.
80. Mr. Sundaram submitted that it was no doubt true that at the initial stages it had been the intention of GoWB and WBIDC to involve Dr. Chatterjee and his Group of Companies as the prime stakeholders in HPL with management control, but at crucial times when support in the form of equity was required, the Chatterjee Group failed to provide the same. Mr. Sundaram submitted that even when on 3rd June, 1996, GoWB wrote to Dr. Chatterjee that on account of HPL's financial crunch, all promoters had been requested to induct 50% of the equity and the last date for such infusion was 18th June, 1996, the Chatterjee Group failed to make such investments, although, both the Tatas and WBIDC brought in their respective equity contributions of Rs.35.5 crores and Rs.117 crores. Once again, since the Lenders were insisting on immediate infusion of Rs.581 crores into HPL and HPL was on the threshold of becoming a Non- Performing Asset, a Rights Issue Offer was made by HPL to the existing shareholders for subscription of 34,99,99,988 shares at the rate of Rs.10/- per share. Despite Dr. Chatterjee's assurance to bring in Rs.53.5 crores immediately along with additional fund of Rs.53.5 crores and a further sum of Rs.300 crores, the Chatterjee Group did not subscribe to the Rights Issue, thereby depriving the Company of Rs.107 crores at a very crucial time. In order to re-assure HPL, the Chatterjee Group on 12th January, 2002, agreed to induct a minimum of Rs.500 crores and such other further funds towards equity and equity-like instruments to effectuate the Corporate Debt Restructuring. However, despite such commitment, till today, the Chatterjee Group has not brought in the amount of Rs.500 crores committed by it. On the other hand, acting on the assurance given by the Chatterjee Group, WBIDC agreed to transfer shares worth Rs.360 crores to the Chatterjee Group to ensure that it controlled 51% of paid-up equity to enable it to remain in the majority. Mr. Sundaram submitted that out of the said number of shares, 155 million shares were, in fact, transferred to CP(I)CL to maintain a shareholding of 51%. However, WBIDC even agreed to transfer shares beyond the said 155 million shares to ensure that the 51% shareholding of CP(M)C was maintained. It was also agreed that the transfer would be effected within 10 days of the acceptance of Letter of Comfort by WBIDC. Mr. Sundaram submitted that although the shares were transferred in the name of CP(I)CL, the said transfers were never completed as they were not registered either in the Company's books or with the Registrar of Companies and WBIDC continued to have voting rights on the said 155 million shares. Mr. Sundaram submitted that to cap it all, instead of bringing in equity of an amount of Rs.53.5 crores, as promised as per the decision taken by the Company on 3rd June, 1996, to induct 50% of its equity, the Chatterjee Group brought in only Rs.61.5 crores and that too as debt and not equity, despite the fact that post-dated cheques issued to vendors were still bouncing and other commitments were not met. In addition, the Corporate Debt Restructuring could not be implemented since CP(M)C could not induct a strategic investor. Ultimately, out of sheer compulsion in order to save the Company from becoming a Non-Performing Asset, a decision had to be taken to induct IOC as a portfolio investor, though there may have been discussion to bring in IOC as a strategic investor.
81. Mr. Sundaram submitted that one of the questions which arise in these proceedings is whether the Company Law Board, acting under Sections 397 and 398, read with Section 402 of the Companies Act, could direct sale of shares in the absence of a finding that there had been oppression by one body of shareholders against another or mismanagement of the Company. According to Mr. Sundaram, the second question, which is directly connected with the first, is whether in the absence of such a finding the Company Law Board could direct sale of shares in the absence of a further finding that such sale of shares was necessary in the interest of the Company. The third question posed by Mr. Sundaram was whether in addition to the findings indicated above, the Company Law Board could direct sale of shares under Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 402 of the above Act in the absence of a finding that without giving such a direction it might be just and equitable to wind-up the Company.
82. On the aforesaid issues, Mr. Sundaram reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Desai that the said questions have been answered by this Court in Shanti Prasad Jain's case (supra) and in the subsequent decisions in Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad (supra), M.S.D.C. Radharamanan (supra), V.S. Krishnan (supra), the Needle Industries (supra) and in the case of Hanuman Prasad Bagri Vs. Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. [(2001) 4 SCC 420].
83. Mr. Sundaram submitted that the next issue involved the question as to whether the concept of legitimate expectation of a body of shareholders would be applicable to a large public limited company or only in quasi partnerships and family companies and whether in those situations also the sale of shares could be directed in order to break a deadlock. In this regard, reference was made to the decision of this Court in Kilpest Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shekhar Mehra [(1996) 10 SCC 696] and Hind Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla & Anr. [(1976) 3 SCC 259]. In Hind Overseas Pvt. Ltd.'s case, this Court had held that when more than one family or several friends and relations together form a company and there is no right as such agreed upon for active participation of members who are excluded from management, the principles of dissolution of partnership cannot be liberally invoked. It was further observed that it is only when shareholding is more or less equal and there is a case of a complete deadlock in the running of the company on account of lack of probity in the management and there is no hope or possibility of smooth and efficient continuance of the company as a commercial concern, a case for winding up may arise. However, in a given case, the principles of dissolution of partnership may apply if the apparent structure of the company is proved not to be the real structure and on piercing the veil it is found that in reality it is a partnership. Mr. Sundaram submitted that, in any event, the application of the just and equitable clause would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. A note of caution was also introduced that even admission of a petition could prejudice and cause immense injury to a company in the eyes of the investors, if ultimately the petition is dismissed. Mr. Sundaram urged that in a petition under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, it was not always incumbent on the CLB to order the winding up of a company on the just and equitable principle, but in order to pass any order under Section 397, the Company Law Board would have to arrive at a specific finding that there was just and equitable reason to order such winding up.
84. The next issue canvassed by Mr. Sundaram is that the Court would have to examine as to whether the direction given for sale of shares was in order to maintain the status quo which was being disturbed on account of the oppressive measures taken. In this regard, Mr. Sundaram referred to the decisions of this Court in Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. Vs. P.K. Prathapan & Ors. [(2005) 1 SCC 212] and M.S.D.C. Radharamanan's case (supra), along with the decision in Allianz Securities Ltd. Vs. Regal Industries Ltd. [2002 (11) CC 764 = (2000) 25 SCL 349 (CLB)]. On the concept of legitimate expectation, Mr. Sundaram submitted that it has to be considered whether the same should be restricted to maintaining the state of affairs at the time when the parties became shareholders or whether any subsequent understanding arrived at by private treaty between the shareholders would fall under the purview of the Company Law Board to enable it to deal with such questions between private shareholders.
85. Mr. Sundaram repeated that in this regard it would have to be decided as to whether the CLB could direct sale and transfer of shares to a group to give it majority control on an application under Section 397/398 read with Section 402 of the Companies Act and to enforce specific performance of agreement between the parties whether legitimate or not, especially when such specific performance was not necessary in the interest of the company, or to prevent winding up of the company. Another question of equal importance in this connection was whether specific performance could be directed at the instance of a party whose own conduct had been inequitable in failing to carry out its promises, to the severe prejudice of the company.
86. Another issue raised by Mr. Sundaram, which has a direct bearing to the facts of this case, is whether a Company can effect transfer of shares in the absence of transfer deeds and a request for transfer, and whether the transfer of shares is complete only when such transfers are duly registered and entered in the Register of Members of the Company. In this regard, Mr. Sundaram referred to the decisions of this Court in Howrah Trading Company Vs. CIT [AIR 1959 SC 775]; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. [(1986) 1 SCC 264], Mannalal Khetan Vs. Kadarnath Khetan [(1977) 2 SCC 424], Claude Lila Parulekar (Smt.) Vs. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. [(2005) 11 SCC 73], J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 172], Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. Vardhman Publishers Ltd. [(1992) 73 CC 80] and several other decisions to which we shall shortly refer as they have a bearing on the issue involving the rights acquired by the Chatterjee Group on the transfer of 155 million shares by WBIDC, which were not, thereafter, registered in the name of the Chatterjee Group in the Register of Members of the Company, nor was the factum of such transfer communicated to the Registrar of Companies.
87. Mr. Sundaram also raised another question as to why on failure of reciprocal promises in a contract on account of non-performance of the promises made by one of the parties, the benefits accrued to such party through part performance should not be restituted to the other party. In this regard, reference was made to Sections 51 to 54 of the Contract Act and the decision of the Privy Council in Satgur Prasad Vs. Harnarayan Das [(AIR 1932 PC 89] and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Suit No.1481 of 1996, to which reference may be made, if required.
88. Lastly, on the question of allotment of the 150 million shares by WBIDC to IOC, Mr. Sundaram submitted that on account of the failure of the Chatterjee Group to bring in equity when the Company was in dire need of funds, such allotment was fully justified under the doctrine of Indoor Management. However, even if a legitimate dispute could be raised in regard to such transfer, such transaction could not be avoided by the Company Law Board as the same was in the interest of the Company, which would otherwise have been converted into a Non Performing Asset.
89. What emerges from the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of respective parties is that HPL was incorporated in 1985 by the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation and the R.P. Goenka Group, and their nominees were the subscribers to the Memorandum of Association. Soon thereafter, in 1990, the Goenka Group left the Company and Tata Chemicals and Tata Tea were inducted into the project between 1990 and 1993. However, since the TATAs were not very keen to continue with the Project, in June 1994, Dr. Purnendu Chatterjee, a Non-Resident Indian industrialist and financier, evinced his interest in implementing the project. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between WBIDC and the Chatterjee Petrochem (
90. In addition to the above, certain duties and obligations to be performed by the Chatterjee Group were also indicated, mainly confined to the question of bringing in equity in an otherwise cash-strapped situation then prevailing in relation to the Company's finances. It also appears that the assurances given by WBIDC/GoWB were on account of the aforesaid assurances given by the Chatterjee Group to bring in equity. Inasmuch as, the Chatterjee Group failed to abide by its commitments, the Company had no other alternative, but to bring in IOC by selling and transferring 150 million shares to the said Company.
91. The parties also agreed that they would be entitled to seek specific performance of the terms and conditions of the Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Various other terms and conditions were included with the intention of guaranteeing that CP(M)C would acquire a controlling interest to the extent of at least 51% shares which would also give it complete control over the day-to-day affairs of the Company. In addition, it was agreed that in future the composition of the Board would be altered to reflect the revised shareholding structure and WBIDC would vote along with CP(M)C on all issues in the shareholders meeting and its nominee would also vote along with the nominee Directors of the CP(M)C.
92. Despite the concessions given and/or afforded to the Chatterjee Group, it had failed to take advantage of the same and a subsequent Agreement dated 8th March, 2002, had to be entered into for recording the fact that in terms of the Agreement dated 12th January, 2002, 155,099,998 equity shares of WBIDC had been transferred/delivered to CP (I) PL on the same day. It was also indicated in the Agreement that all the aforesaid shares which had been transferred and delivered to the Petitioner No.4 would be pledged with WBIDC and, accordingly, their shares had been duly lodged along with their share certificates with WBIDC and such pledge had been acknowledged.
93. It is in the aforesaid background that we have to consider the Petition filed by the Chatterjee group before the Company Law Board under Sections 397, 398, 399, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the reliefs prayed for therein.
94. The law relating to grant of relief on a petition under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, has been crystallised in various decisions of this Court, including those cited on behalf of the parties. The common refrain running through all these decisions is that in order to succeed in an action under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, the complainant has to prove that the affairs of the Company were being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members. For better appreciation of the above, Section 397 of the above Act is extracted herein below :
“397. Application to [Tribunal] for relief in cases of oppression.--
1) Any member of a company who complains that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or] in a manner oppressive to any member or members (including any one or more of themselves) may apply to the Tribunal for an order under this section, provided such members have a right so to apply in virtue of section 399.
(2) If, on any application under sub- section (1), the Court is of opinion--
(a) that the company's affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members; and
(b) that to wind up the company would unfairly prejudice such member or members, but that otherwise the facts would justify the making of a winding-up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the company should be wound up, the Tribunal may, with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained of, make such order as it thinks fit.”
However, as was observed by this Court in Shanti Prasad Jain's case (supra) the law has not defined as to what would amount to “oppressive” for the purposes of Section 397 and it is for the Courts to decide on the facts of each case as to whether such oppression exists which would call for action under Section 397. It was also emphasized that the conduct of the majority shareholders should not only be oppressive to the minority, but must also be burdensome and operating harshly upto the date of the petition.
95. The main grievance of the Appellants appears to be that having been induced into investing large sums of money in establishing the petrochemical complex on various promises, particularly that the Company would continue to retain its private character and the Chatterjee group would have control over its management, such promises, although, reduced into writing in the form of agreements, not only remained unfulfilled, but even the character of the Company was altered with the transfer and sale of 150 million shares by the Company in favour of IOC. Coupled with the above, is the other grievance that despite having transferred 155 million shares in favour of CP(I)PL, and having received the full price therefor, the Company had not registered the same in the Company's Register of Share-holders, thereby depriving the Chatterjee Group from exercising its right to vote in respect of the said shares. The third grievance of the Chatterjee Group is that by not registering the transfer of the 155 million shares in their favour, but, on the other hand, transferring 150 million shares in favour of IOC, the character of the Company was altered from a Private Company into a Government Company and also reduced the Chatterjee Group to a minority, despite the promises held out earlier and as incorporated in the Agreements dated 20th August, 1994, 12th January, 2002 and 8th March, 2002.
96. Let us examine as to whether any of the complaints contained in the Company Petition before the CLB make out a case that the affairs of the Company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members, which was sufficient to justify the passing of a winding-up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the Company should be wound-up, but that to wind-up the Company would prejudice such member or members. In Shanti Prasad Jain's case (supra), referred to hereinabove, in a similar situation, it was observed by this Court as follows:-
“It is not enough to show that there is just and equitable cause for winding up the Company though that must be shown as a preliminary to the application of Section 397. It must further be shown that the conduct of the majority shareholders was oppressive to the minority as members and this requires that events have to be considered not in isolation but as part of a consecutive story. There must be continuous acts on the part of the majority shareholders, continuing up to the date of petition, showing that the affairs of the company were being conducted in a manner oppressive to some part of the members. The conduct must be burdensome, harsh and wrongful, and mere lack of confidence between the majority shareholders and the minority shareholders would not be enough unless the lack of confidence springs from oppression of a minority by a majority in the management of the Company's affairs and such oppression must involve at least an element of lack of probity or fair dealing to a member in the matter of his proprietary rights as a shareholder.” It will be evident that in order to pass orders under Section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956, the CLB has to be satisfied that the Company's affairs are being conducted in a manner oppressive to any member or members and that the facts would justify the making of a winding-up order on the just and equitable principle, but that such an order would unfairly prejudice the Applicant before the CLB.
As was discussed by this Court in the Needle Industries case (supra), unwise, inefficient or careless conduct of a Director cannot give rise to claim for relief under Section 397 of the Act. For relief under this Section, the Applicant would have to prove that the conduct of the majority of the shareholders lacked probity and was unfair so as to cause prejudice to the Applicant in exercising his legal and proprietary rights as a shareholder. This, in fact, is the golden thread of the various decisions in relation to petitions under Section 397, 398 and 402 of the above Act. All the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the various parties are ad idem on this issue and applying the said principles, each complaint under Section 397 will have to be judged on its own merit for the CLB to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the ingredients of Section 397 were satisfied and pass appropriate orders thereafter.
97. As has been indicated in some of the cases cited, the language of Section 397 suggests that the oppressive manner in which the Company's affairs were being conducted could not be confined to one isolated incident, but that such acts would have to be continuous as to be part of a concerted action to cause prejudice to the minority shareholders whose interests are prejudiced thereby.
98. In the aforesaid context, what do the facts reveal in the instant case and do they bring the acts of oppression complained of within the purview of Section 397 for grant of relief under Section 402 of the Companies Act?
99. The case of the Chatterjee Group is woven around two particular issues, namely, that it had been induced to invest in HPL so as to make it a successful commercial enterprise on the promise that the Company would always retain a private character and the Chatterjee Group would have control over its management, but such a promise had not been adhered to and, on the other hand, negotiations were undertaken by WBIDC to induct IOC, a Central Government Company, with the intention of ultimately handing over the management of the Company to IOC. The aforesaid case of the Chatterjee Group is also based on the grievance that while keeping the Chatterjee Group under the impression that it intended to ensure that the Chatterjee Group had the requisite number of shares to allow it to have a majority shareholding and thereby control of the Company's management, the Company carried on clandestine negotiations with WIBDC to transfer all the shares held by it in the Company to IOC to give it management and control over the Company's affairs.
100. The second ground, as made out by the Chatterjee Group, was that despite having transferred 155 million shares in favour of CP(I)PL on 8th March, 2002, it did not register the same in the name of CP(I)PL, which remained the beneficial owner, the right to vote on the basis thereof remained with WBIDC. This was done despite the fact that the price for the said shares had been received by way of a private arrangement and the Lenders and financial institutions had given their consent to the same. According to the Chatterjee Group, this one act of omission on the part of the Company was sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 397 of the Companies Act and for the CLB to pass appropriate orders on account thereof. It is on account of the second ground on which the Company Petition was filed that a prayer had been made therein for a direction upon WBIDC and IOC to immediately register the transferred 155 million shares in the name of CP(I)PL.
101. From the facts as revealed, it is clear that when Dr. Purnendu Chatterjee expressed his interest in setting up of the Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., various incentives had been offered to him by the GoWB and WBIDC to invest in the Company and to make it a successful commercial enterprise. Such investments were, however, contingent upon Dr. Chatterjee's bringing in sufficient equity to set up and run the Company. As would be seen, at the very initial stage all the understanding between Dr. Chatterjee and GoWB & WBIDC, both WBIDC and the Chatterjee Group were to hold 433 million shares each, while Tata was to hold 144 million shares. The promise extended by WBIDC and GoWB to the Chatterjee Group to provide at least 60% of the shares held by WBIDC at Rs.14/- per share to the Chatterjee Group so as to give the Chatterjee Group the majority shareholding in the Company, as was indicated in the Agreements dated 12th January, 2002, 8th March, 2002 and 14th January, 2005, did not ultimately materialise and, on the other hand, the Chatterjee Group was reduced to a minority on account of its decision not to participate in the Rights Issue, and, thereafter, by transfer of 150 million shares by WBIDC in favour of IOC.
102. Although, the Chatterjee Group has complained of the manner in which it had been reduced to a minority in the Company, it is also obvious that when the Company was in dire need of funds and the Chatterjee Group also promised to provide a part of the same, it did not do so and instead of bringing in equity, it obtained a loan from HSBC through the Merlin Group, which only increased the debt equity ratio of the Company. Furthermore, while promising to infuse sufficient equity in addition to the amounts that would have been brought in by way of subscription to the Rights Issue, the Chatterjee Group imposed various pre-conditions in order to do so, which ultimately led GoWB and WBIDC to terminate the agreement to transfer sufficient number of shares to the Chatterjee Group to enable it to have complete control over the management of the Company and also to retain its private character. It is at a stage when there was a threat to the supply of Naphtha, which was the main ingredient used by HPL for its manufacturing process, that it finally agreed to induct IOC into the Company as a member by transferring 150 million shares to it. It may not be out of place to mention that it was on Dr. Chatterjee's initiative that it had been decided to induct the IOC as a member of the Company at meetings of the Directors which were chaired by Dr. Chatterjee himself. Of course, as explained on behalf of the Chatterjee Group, even the induction of the IOC as a member of the Company is concerned, was part of a conspiracy to deprive the Chatterjee Group of control of the Company since GoWB and WBIDC never intended to keep its promise regarding transfer of at least 60% of its shareholdings in favour of the Chatterjee Group. Such a submission has to be considered in the context of the financial condition of the Company and the response of the Chatterjee Group in meeting such financial crunch. In our view, if in the first place, the Chatterjee Group had stood by its commitment to bring in equity and had subscribed to the Rights Issue, which was a decision taken by the Company to infuse equity in the running of the Company, it would neither have been reduced to a minority nor would it perhaps have been necessary to induct IOC as a portfolio investor with the possibility of the same being converted into a strategic investment.
103. The failure of WBIDC and GoWB to register the 155 million shares transferred to CP(I)PL could not, strictly speaking, be taken to be failure on the part of the Company, but it was the failure of one of the parties to a private arrangement to abide by its commitments. The remedy in such a case was not under Section 397 of the Companies Act. It has been submitted by both Mr. Nariman and Mr. Sarkar that even if no acts of oppression had been made out against the Company, it would still be open to the learned Company Judge to grant suitable relief under Section 402 of the Act to iron out the differences that might appear from time to time in the running of the affairs of the Company. No doubt, in the Needle Industries case, this Court had observed that the behaviour and conduct complained of must be held to be harsh and wrongful and in arriving at such a finding, the Court ought not to confine itself to a narrow legalistic view and allow technical pleas to defeat the beneficial provisions of the Section, and that in certain situations the Court is not powerless to do substantial justice between the parties, the facts of this case do not merit such a course of action to be taken. Such an argument is not available to the Chatterjee Group, since the alleged breach of the agreements referred to hereinabove, was really in the nature of a breach between two members of the Company and not the Company itself. It is not on account of any act on the part of the Company that the shares transferred to CP(I)PL were not registered in the name of the Chatterjee Group. There was, therefore, no occasion for the CLB to make any order either under Section 397 or 402 of the aforesaid Act. If, as was observed in M.S.D.C. Radharamanan's case (supra), the CLB had given a finding that the acts of oppression had not been established, it would still be in a position to pass appropriate orders under Section 402 of the Act. That, however, is not the case in the instant appeals.
104. In our view, the appellants have failed to substantiate either of the two grounds canvassed by them for the CLB to assume jurisdiction either under Section 397 or 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, and it could not, therefore, have given directions to WBIDC and GoWB to transfer 520 million shares held by them in HPL to the Chatterjee Group and the High Court quite rightly set aside the same and dismissed the Company Petition.”
This is a wonderful case where the Supreme Court has disposed of the matter based on facts rather dealing with the legal principles extensively pleaded before the Court. It is very difficult to deal with the importance of settled legal principles under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the light of a proposition that the Board can pass orders in a petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 even when a case of ‘oppression and mismanagement’ is not established in strict senso. On the same footing, emphasis was laid on the principle that an unfair decision of a director can not be seen as ‘oppressive’ so as to give room to the minority to approach the Board under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
This is happening now and most of the cases under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 are decided based on the facts of the case and towards the objective of ‘putting an end to the matters complained of’.
Note: the views expressed are my personal.