6

COMPANY LAW
Arya. A. Kumar*
I INTRODUCTION
IN THE YEAR 2013, the company law sector has undergone a sea change with
the passage of the Companies Act, 2013.1 The new Act brought out important
changes in some of the key areas in the company matters like Board meetings,
Share capital, Directors powers, duties and liabilities, Annual General Meetings,
Compromise, Arrangement and Amalgamation, Merger, Winding Up, Company
dividend declaration & Transfer and in cooperation of Companies etc. Indeed,
the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter CA, 2013) is a progressive legislation enacted
with the objective to bring more transparency and accountability in the company
managements. In order to protect the interest of the stakeholders, the Act has also
legalized the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy 2 and
introduced a new concept of small company within the realm of the Act. A
cursory glance of the CA, 2013 gives the impression that the new act aimed for a
better corporate governance and security in company matters. To a great extent,
the new act has clarified many ambiguities existed in the parent Act.
II COMPOUNDING OFFENCES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
Section 211 (7) of the companies Act, 1956 prescribes punishment of
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with the fine which
may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. Whether an offence punishable
under section 211 (7) of the Companies Act, 1956, was compoundable by the
company law board (CLB) was the question before the apex court in V.L.S. Finance
Ltd. v. Union of India3 wherein it held that the offence with which the accused had
been charged did not necessarily invite imprisonment or imprisonment and also
fine. Hence, the nature of the offence was such that it was permissible to be
compounded by the CLB.

Assistant Professor, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi

Available at: http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct2013.pdf. Act No.

18 of 2013.

Cl. 135 of the Companies Act, 2013.

[2013] 178 Comp Cas 348.

152

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

An accused charged with the offence under section 211 (7) of the Act has not
necessarily to be visited with imprisonment or imprisonment with fine but can be
let off by imposition of fine only. Therefore, the punishment provided under section
211(7) of the Act comes under the category of offences which can be compounded
under section 621A.4 Hence, the power to compound can be exercised in relation
to offences of the same nature by the CLB or the court of sessions in the matter
with the difference that the CLB can proceed to compound such offence either
before or after the institution of any prosecution and the criminal court possesses
similar power to compound an offence after institution of the prosecution
III STRIKING OFF NON-OPERATIONAL COMPANIES
Generally, the option of the striking off the names of the non-operational
companies is considered as an alternative of the process of winding up. Section
560(6)5 of the Companies Act, 1956 empowers the Registrar of the Companies to
strike down the names of those companies which are registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, and due to various reasons remain as inoperative since its
incorporation or commenced business. The section requires that a notice to be
sent to the companies regarding the striking off companies name from the
Registrars list.
In Raj Chiktsa P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies6 the Patna High Court held
that under section 560(6), the court must be satisfied that the company at the time
of striking off its name from the register of companies was carrying on business or
in operation. The court came to the conclusion that it was not feasible to accept
the claim as the claim was neither genuine nor was there disclosure of all material
facts.
IV FOREIGN COMPANIES
Section 5917 of the companies Act, 1956 defines the foreign companies. In
Namkar Vinimay P.Ltd v. Yashdeep Trexim Pvt.Ltd.,8 the high court held that a
4.

According to s. 621 A, Any offence is punishable under this Act (whether committed
by a company or any officer thereof), not being an offence punishable with
imprisonment only, or with imprisonment and also with fine, may, either before or
after the institution of any prosecution, be compounded by the Company Law Board;
or b) where the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for such offence
does not exceed fifty thousand rupees, by the Regional Director.

See s. 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, Registrar of Companies may strike off the
name of companies on satisfying that the company has not done any business since
its inception.

[2013] 179 Comp Cas 71 (Patna).

S. 591

[2013] 181 Comp Cas 29 (Cal).

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

153

foreign company9 falls within the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA, 1985). The court further clarified that the definition
of the term Company in the SICA cannot be restricted to exclude a foreign
company. On appeal, the apex court 10 refused to go into the issue and dismissed
the matter with an observation that SICA was enacted to overcome grossly
inadequate and time-consuming institutional arrangements for revival and
rehabilitation of sick industrial companies.
V SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION
With the sanctioning of amalgamation scheme under section 39111 of the CA,
2013 all the liabilities of the transferor company and all the rights in relation
thereto stand transferred to the transferee company as the transferee company step
into the shoes of the transferor company. In Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. CMD Build
tech. Pvt .Ltd.,12 the Delhi High Court considered the question whether the transferee
company can resort to the remedy of winding up petition against the company
which owed a debt to the transferor company? The court answering affirmatively
held that since all the assets and liabilities of the company stood transferred to the
transferee company petition for winding up is permissible. In the present case,
the petitioners had filed a petition for winding up of the respondent-company
under section 433, 434 & 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 which was objected by
the respondent company on the ground that the petitioner was not competent to
file the petition since the loan was not given by them but by other company. By
rejecting their objection, the court held that since the company got amalgamated
and all the assets and liabilities got transferred to the petitioner and they are entitled
to file a petition for winding up.
Generally, there are certain procedures mandatory to be followed for scheme
of amalgamation of companies under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act,
1956. In Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd., In re13 the court examined an
important issue whether separate application by transferee company is required
under sections 391 or 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 in case of amalgamation?
A petition was preferred by the transferor company for sanction of an amalgamation
scheme whereby the entire business and the undertaking of transferor company
are to be transferred to, and vested in the transferee company. Here, the transferor
company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company. In a scheme
involving amalgamation of a wholly owned subsidiary company with its holding
company, the transferee company is not obliged to seek sanction. Almost a same
9

As defined by the s. 591 of the Companies Act, 1956.

10 Yashdeep Trexim P.Ltd v. Namkar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., [2013] 181 Comp Cas 52 (SC).
11 S. 391 is vested with very wide powers of the court to approve any scheme of
amalgamation, arrangement, compromise or reconstruction for which the court has
to follow special procedure.
12 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 111 (Del).
13 [2013] 176 Comp Cas 217. (Guj)).

154

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

issue was analysed by the court in Jindal Agro Processing Pvt. Ltd., In re14 the
petitioner-company was proposed to be amalgamated with its wholly owned
subsidiary company and dispensation from meetings of the secured and unsecured
creditors under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, was sought. Granting
it, the court held that the petitioner-company being the holding transferee company,
was not required to take out separate proceedings under section 391 (2) of the
1956 Act to the proposed scheme of amalgamation of its wholly owned subsidiary
with itself. The proceedings under section 391(2) of the 1956 Act were to be
dispensed with.
When a scheme does not envisage issuance of any shares to the transferee
company or does not involve any compromise or arrangement with the shareholders
or creditors of the transferee company and when the net worth of both the transferor
and transferee company is positive, then transferee company is not required to
initiate proceedings under section 391 to 394 of the Act and the transferee company
need not approach the high court having jurisdiction over it to seek dispensation
of the proceedings under section 391 to 394 of the Act. In one case,15 following
the principles laid down in the previous cases, the Madras High Court held that if
the shareholders in their commercial wisdom have accepted the exchange ratio of
shares in the scheme of arrangement, with their open eyes, it would not be open to
the Regional Director to raise objections to it.
In Adishree Tradelinks P. Ltd., In re16 reversing the direction of the single
judge while granting sanction to a scheme of amalgamation under section 391/
394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the court held that the amalgamation reserve
fund shall not be used for declaring dividend, the division bench of the high court
held that the reserve can be utilized for the purpose of declaring dividends. In the
courts view, there was no justification in imposing the conditions as to nonutilization of amalgamation reserve for the purpose of declaring dividend when
no objection was taken by the regional director and the shareholders had
unanimously approved the scheme with the original clause permitting utilization
of such reserve for distribution, as incorporation of the clause was not in violation
of public policy.
Scheme of arrangement
Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 gives companies freedom to frame
any scheme of compromise or arrangement and the courts wide powers to sanction
such schemes17. Any company registered under the Act can take advantage of the
said provisions and go in for a corporate restructuring through a scheme of
compromise or arrangement.

14 [2013] 176 Comp Cas 215 (Guj).

15 V. R. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., In re [2013] 177 Comp Cas 83 (Mad).
16 [2013] 176 Comp Cas 67.
17 The section stipultes that such schemes are subjected to the company complying with
the procedural requirements under the said sections and rules.

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

155

The scope and applicability of sections 39118 and 39219 was challenged in
Castron Technologies Ltd. v. Castron Mining Ltd 20 wherein the court held that an
order recalling the order of sanctioning a scheme of compromise or arrangement
cannot be recalled at the instance of one party. It further ruled that these sections
can be invoked for the purpose of proper working of the compromise or arrangement
scheme. In the present case, an application for recalling was filed by the petitioner.
The court observed that the application for recalling was not in the aid of the
scheme, but for frustrating the scheme. Since it was no longer possible to give
effect to the scheme and the scheme was not beneficial or in the interest of the
shareholders or applicants was not a ground to recall the order. The application
for recalling the order sanctioning the scheme of arrangement could not be filed
by one party. Had both the appellant and the respondent, who were parties to the
scheme of arrangement being the transferor and transferee company, respectively,
applied for recalling the order sanctioning the scheme, the application could have
been considered.
In IL and FS Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Wardha Power Co.
Ltd 21 the court held that as a share premium was used to write off accumulated
losses and payment of dividend to preference shareholders, the requirements of
the sections relating to reduction of share capital and sections relating to scheme
of arrangement, must be complied with as the aggregate of assets was more than
sufficient to meet liabilities and the reduction did not involve diminution of liability
in respect of unpaid share capital, the scheme as a whole and reasonable and not
contrary to any law or to public policy nor against public interest, the scheme
deserved to be sanctioned.
The limitation of the court in interfering with the scheme of arrangement
under section 392 was explained by the court in 22 as, that under the terms of
provisions of section 392, powers of court are limited to giving directions which it
considers necessary for proper working of compromise or arrangement, however,
court cannot add terms to scheme which did not exist in original sanctioned scheme.
In Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India Etc,23 the Supreme
Court has held that a scheme of arrangement or compromise by non-banking
financial company proposing repayment of deposits by conversion of deposits
into debentures and then into equity cannot be sanctioned by the court as it was
contrary to provisions of chapter III of Reserve Bank of India Act,1934 which
18 Ibid.
19 S. 392 of the companies act gives power to the court to implement a compromise or
arrangement.
20 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 311 (Cal).
21 [2013] 176 Comp Cas 156.
22 [2013] 122 SCL 43 (Delhi).
23 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 390 (SC).

156

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

have an overriding effect, and that failure to disclose by the company in the
explanatory note under section 393 violations revealed in inspection by Reserve
Bank was a material fact required to be disclosed. The court held that it is a settled
proposition of law that a later enactment will override the earlier enactment. Chapter
III B has been given overriding effect over all other laws including the 1956 CA
Act by incorporating section 45Q with a clear intention to ensure that in case of a
non-banking financial company, a scheme under section 391 of the 1956 Act cannot
be entertained unless it is in conformity with the provisions of section 45QA of
the 1934 Act.
The condition regarding the members power to approve or sanction a scheme
under section 391(2) was challenged in the present case.24 The court held that
though no general meeting of the shareholders of the resulting company was
convened for the purpose, they approved the scheme unanimously and their
knowledge and approval of the proposal reduction of the resulting companys
capital was therefore implicit in their unconditional consent. The court added that
before the company court sanctions a scheme of arrangement, it must be satisfied
that the procedures prescribed in the Act are duly complied with. The court clarified
that the merits of the arrangement have to be judged by the parties who arrive at
their own reasoned judgment and agree to be bound by such arrangement. The
court cannot scrutinize the scheme to find out whether a better scheme could have
been adopted by the parties.
In Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. Department of Income-tax25 for the question
whether income tax department has the locus standi to object a scheme of
compromise in a court was clarified by the court that the right of the income-tax
department to recover the dues in accordance with law irrespective of the sanction
of the scheme was to be protected. if any amount is payable to the Income-tax
department by the transferor company, the income-tax department is a creditor in
relation to claim against the transferor company and therefore the income- tax
department has locus standi to put forward its objections in this behalf.
VI OPPRESSION AND MISMANAGEMENT
The Bombay High Court in Union of India v. Company Law Board, Mumbai
Bench26 held that that the notice of every application under section 397/398 of the
Act has to be given to the Central Government is a mandatory requirement under
section 40027 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court further clarified that serving

24 Brilliant Bio Pharma Ltd, In re, [2013] 180 Comp Cas 168 (AP).
25 [2013] 176 Comp Cas 7 (Guj).
26 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 290 (Bom).
27 S. 400 of the CA, 1956, provides that the Company Law Board shall give notice of
every application made to it under section 397 or 398 to the Central Government, and
shall take into consideration the representations, if any, made to it by that Government
before passing a final order under that section.

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

157

a notice is one way of service of proceedings and it is therefore merely a means

of giving the Central Government an opportunity of making representations for
consideration by the CLB before passing final orders. Therefore, even if section
400 of the Act makes it mandatory for the CLB to give such notice to the Central
Government, the section stands complied with once notice is given either by the
CLB itself or through its agent or other person authorized to give such notice.
Under section 400 of the act it is mandatory to serve the notice and rest of the
things like form of the notice, the manner of its service and the identity of the
server are directory not mandatory requirements.
The CLB discussed an important issue in Keystone Realtors P. Ltd., In re, 28
that whether in a petition under section 397/398 against a company its subsidiary
company should be joined as a party to the petition? The board held that the
subsidiary company can join as a party for filing a suit for oppression and
mismanagement under sections 397/398 of the companies act. The board further
ruled that although the petitioner and respondent were not shareholders in the
subsidiary companies, however, these companies were shown to be in the form of
departments of the first respondent and their affairs required the approval of the
board of directors of the first respondent- company and in the approval the
petitioners affirmative vote was required. Thus even without being a member or
shareholder the petitioner and respondent had stakes in the subsidiary companies
and the agreement showed that they had control on the subsidiary companies
through the first respondent. In Bhagwati Developers case,29 the apex court held
that where a company petition is filed under section 397 or 398 of the Act with the
consent of other shareholders, it must be treated in a representative capacity, and
an application for withdrawal by the original petitioner in the petition, would not
render the petition non-existent or non-maintainable.
In Naresh Mohan Mittal v. Sangeeta Construction Pvt. Ltd.30 the CLB held
that appointment and removal of directors by manipulation of records and holding
meetings without quorum amounted to harsh, burdensome conduct, against probity
and good conduct involving continuous acts of oppression against the petitioners.
In Ganesh Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Arun Kumar Mohata31 a petition for
oppression and mismanagement was filed by the petitioner on the ground that
there was an increase in the share capital. The court held that in spite of the notice
of the meeting in which shares were allotted having been received by the respondent,
he abstained from the meeting. The reason for increasing the share capital was to
facilitate influx of funds and it was not the appellants intention to convert the
respondent into a minority. All that the appellant was doing was to keep the company
afloat till such time that the family settlement was worked out. No contribution

28 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 503 (CLB).

29 Infra note 70.
30 [2013] 178 Comp Cas 188.
31 [2013] 180 Comp Cas 1 (Cal).

158

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

was made by the respondent to keep the company afloat, nor to honour his
commitment under the family settlement.
The court in Sanjay Gambhir v. D.D. Industries Ltd.32 held that the powers of
the CLB are not limited by other provisions of the Act. The power to grant interim
relief under section 403 is incidental to the power to other substantial reliefs as set
out in section 402 of the Act. The court observed:33
The width of the power is indicated by the words any interim
order which it thinks fit and such terms and conditions as
appear to it to be just and equitable. The power is not limited
by other provisions of the statute. Section 402 of the Act, in fact
begins with the words Without prejudice to the generality of
the powers of the Tribunal . . . While exercising the powers
under section 402 or 403 of the Act, the Company Law Board
does not have to account for the mandatory requirements of other
provisions like section 169 or 186 of the Act. The language in
fact appears to indicate to the contrary. It permits the Company
Law Board to pass orders as long as it is in the interests of the
proper conduct of the affairs of the company and it is just and
equitable to pass such order. Whether in fact the order is
justified will depend on the facts of each case.
In Rajeev Kapur v. Grentex and Co. Pvt. Ltd.34 the high court held that the
section 397 can be invoked by any member of a company who complains that the
affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to the member
or members. The grievance of a member that he has been ousted as a working
director or his remuneration has been reduced has nothing to do with the status as
a share-holder in the company. That relates to his status as a director of the company
and not to his status as a shareholder of the company.
VII WINDING UP OF COMPANIES
Under the new CA, 2013 section 27135 corresponds to section 43336 of the
Companies Act, 1956 was inserted under which it is the discretion of the court to
pass an order to wind up a company in the circumstances mentioned in the section.
Although it is a discretionary power of the court to order for winding up of the
company, it has to take into consideration the amount of public interest involved
in such cases. Different judicial interpretations of sections 433-434 are analyzed here.
32 [2013] 177 Comp Cas 99.
33 Id. at para 25.
34 [2013] 178 Comp Cas 28.
35 S. 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with circumstances under which a Company
may be wound up by a Tribunal.
36 This section deals with the circumstances under which a Company may be wound
up by the court:- A Company may be wound up by the Court,- if the Court is of the
opinion that it is just and equitable that the Company should be wound up.

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

159

In order to file a petition for winding up of a company under section 43337 of

the Companies Act, 1956 it is mandatory that the petitioner should exhaust all the
alternative remedies available under other sections 38 of the Act. The courts in
number of cases39 clarified that relief under section 433 based on the just and
equitable clause is in the nature of last resort when other remedies are not
efficacious enough to protect the general interest of the company.
It is now well settled law that winding up is not legitimate means to enforce
the recovery by pressurizing the company to enter into a settlement. The general
rule with regard to the winding up petition is that under section 433 (e) it is necessary
that the petitioner should file the winding up petition. But in Deutshe Trustee
Company Ltd v. Mascon Global Ltd.,40 although the court have clarified that the
winding up petition can be filed even by a person in a representative capacity, and
held that it will be too harsh to order winding up of a running company, merely on
the petition by trustee, filed without proper authorization. As per the facts of the
case, the petition was filed by the petitioner in a representative capacity as a
debenture trustee filed a winding up petition under section 433 (e) of the Companies
Act.
In Shahi Exports P. Ltd. v. CMD Buildtech P. Ltd.,41the petitioners had filed
a petition for winding up of the resident-company under section 433(e) read with
sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the respondent
company was unable to pay debts. The respondent-company raised preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the first petitioner
was not competent to file the petition as the loan was not given by the petitioner
company. The court rejected the contention and held that since the petitioner
company got amalgamated to the parent company, all the assets and liabilities of
the parent company stood transferred to the petitioner which had filed the petition
for winding up. The case discussed the important issue of maintainability of winding
up petition under section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956 in which the company
got amalgamated to the other company.
In Ashutosh Sharma v. Torque Cables Pvt .Ltd.,42 the court dismissed the
petition filed under section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that
the petition prima facie showed that it was a case to which the provisions of sections

37 Ibid.
38 S. 397 & 398 of the Companies Act refer to winding up on just and equitable grounds.
39 Hind Overseas P.Ltd v. Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla, [1976] 46 Comp Cas 91
(SC); Atul Drug House Ltd., In re [1971] 41 Comp Cas 352 (Guj); Virgin Records (I.)
P.Ltd v. Milestone Music Distribution Pvt. Ltd. [2004] 119 Comp Cas 963 (Bom).
40 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 223 (Mad).
41 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 111 (Delhi).
42 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 61 (Del).

160

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

397 & 398 of the Act might be attracted. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner,
a shareholder and a director of the company filed a petition seeking winding up of
a company under section 433 (f) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition was
based on some allegations that the Company had been continuously suffering
loss and its capital had eroded. By observing that the winding up proceedings
under section 433 had to be used as a last resort, the court ordered to resort to the
alternative remedies available under sections 397 & 398 of the Act. In another
case43 the court ordered for the winding up of the company under section 433 (f)
on the ground that there was sufficient reasons to invoke just and equitable clauses
for winding up of the company. In this case, the court pointed out that there was
complete lack of faith and probity resulting in irretrievable breakdown between
the major shareholders of the company and the liabilities of the company had far
exceeded its assets which can be treated as the valid ground to invoke section 433
(f) of the Companies Act, 1956. In Bibby Financial Services India Pvt .Ltd v.
Ecotech Apparels Pvt. Ltd44 the court held that even if the conditions in section
434(1) (a) and (1) (c) regarding the service of notice on the Company at its
registered office is not fulfilled that will not invalidate the winding up petition.
In Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. v. Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd.45the Bombay High
Court admitted a winding up petition filed under section 433(f) for there existed
deadlock among the shareholders and the company was losing substratum. As
per the facts of the case, there was complete lack of faith and probity resulting in
irretrievable breakdown between the major shareholders of the company and the
liabilities of the company had far exceeded its assets. Michael Hart v. Ninestars
Information Technologies Ltd.46 raised an important question whether petition
seeking winding up of a company on the ground of inability to pay debts is barred
by the period of limitation? In the present case, the petition filed by the appellant
under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of
the company was dismissed by the single judge on the ground that the claim ought
to have been made within three years from the date of resignation and that
communication did not amount to an acknowledgment of the debt as it was given
after expiration of the three year period. The factual matrix of the case was that
the appellant, engaged as a consultant to the respondent-company under an
agreement, sent invoices every month towards consultation fees but the company
failed to make the payments. The appellant tendered his resignation and claimed
the amount payable under the agreement. Although the company acknowledged
its liability failed to pay the amount. The court held that the managing director of
the company had admitted its liability and the issuance of the promissory note in
favour of the appellant and the company had clearly admitted the fact that it could
not make the payments, payable to the appellant, due to financial constraints. As
43 Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. v. Etisalat DB Telecom P.Ltd, [2013] 181 Comp Cas 417
(Bom).
44 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 211 (Del).
45 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 417 (Bom).
46 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 187 (Mad).

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

161

the acknowledgment of debt had been made by the respondent-company, before

the limitation period of three years was over, a fresh limitation period had started
from the date of such acknowledgment. Thus, the winding up petition filed by the
appellant, was within the period of limitation. The court with the observation that
the single judge had erred in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, remitted
back to the single judge to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law.
Almost a same issue was dealt by the court in Vishnu Manglani v. Tuff Energy
Pvt. Ltd.47 wherein the court admitted the petition of winding up and held that that
there was no merit in the defense raised by the company. The respondent-company
had taken premises for rent under a lease agreement and paid the monthly rent for
seven months but failed to pay thereafter. A notice under section 433 read with
section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 was issued but no reply was received to
the notice from the company. The lesser filed a petition seeking winding up of the
company. The company, inter alia, contended that the lease deed was not registered
and, therefore, could not be looked into.
Section 434 (1)48 makes it mandatory for a company to send a statutory notice
about the inability to pay debts to which the company is indebted. In IFCI Factors
Ltd. v. Koutons Retail India Ltd.,49 a notice was issued by registered post to the
company but there had been no response from it. Therefore, the petitioner filed a
petition seeking winding up of the company. The company contended that the
notice was not sent to the company at its registered office. However, the court
held that even if the legal notice was not served to the company at its registered
office, there was no denial that in fact it received such notice. As long as the
petitioner was able to demonstrate that there was an admitted liability which the
company had unable to pay, it could pursue this petition.
In Official Liquidator, U.P. and Uttrakhand v. Allahabad Bank50 the Supreme
Court clarified the role of official liquidator in case of winding up. The court
clarified that the official liquidator has a role under the Companies Act, 1956 to
protect the interests of the workmen and the creditors and, hence, his association
at the time of auction and sale is appropriate. He has been conferred locus to put
forth his stand in these matters. The official liquidator whose association is
mandatorily required may make an appeal as a person aggrieved relating to the
action taken by the Recovery Officer which would include the manner in which
the auction is conducted or the sale is confirmed.
47 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 589 (Delhi).
48 S. 434(1) of the Companies Act, a company is deemed to be unable to pay its debts if
a creditor, by assignment or otherwise, to whom the company is indebted in a sum
exceeding five hundred rupees then due, has served on the company, by causing it to
be delivered at its registered office, by registered post or otherwise, a demand under
his hand requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for three
weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum, or to secure or compound for it to the
reasonable satisfaction of the creditor
49 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 235 (Delhi).
50 [2013] 177 Comp Cas 426.

162

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

VIII GROUP OF COMPANIES

The concept of group of Companies was legally recognized under the new
Act, 2013. But prior to this the apex court in Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn
Trent Water Purification Inc.51examined the question whether a group of companies
can be parties to arbitration agreement without having singed it? The court answered
affirmatively and held that even a non- signatory party could be subjected to
arbitration provided these transactions were with the group of companies and there
was a clear intention of the parties to bind both, the signatory as well as the nonsignatory parties. As per the facts of the case, there was a joint venture agreement
between an American company and an Indian company which provided for several
agreements required to be entered into between the groups of companies. By giving
a wider interpretation to section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 the court held that
if the court is satisfied that there is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement,
then the expression person claiming through or under provided under section 45
of the Act indicates that the section does not refer to parties to the agreement but
persons in general and if a party is able to establish that a person is claiming
through or under the signatory to the arbitration agreement then the matter could
be referred to arbitration.
IX TRANSMISSION OF SHARES
The objective of section 111 A of the Companies Act,1956 is to provide for
a statutory remedy against the companys failure to register transmission of shares
in the Company to the legal heir/representative of a deceased shareholder. In Suman
Kumar Sinha v. Baroda Crystal Glass Works Ltd.52 the petitioner sought a direction
to the respondent- company to rectify its register of members by inserting the
name of the petitioner against shares of the company. The petitioners claim was
based on a succession certificate issued by the court. The company was directed
to issue duplicate share certificates to the petitioner within four weeks since the
company failed to consider the petitioners claim on time for the transmission of
the shares. In this case, the petitioner approached the company to rectify its register
of members by inserting the name of the petitioner against the shares of the company
based on a succession certificate issued by the court. Although the company had
not refused the transmission of shares, the board of the directors of the company
had not considered the petitioners proposal properly in a just manner. The court
ordered the company to rectify the register of the members and to issue the share
certificate at the earliest.
In Shah Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. Pravinchandra Hirji Shah,53 the Bombay
High Court ordered buying by the majority of the minoritys shares, in view of the
fact that it would not be in the interest of the company or its shareholders including

51 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 339 (SC).

52 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 65 (CLB).
53 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 36 (Bom).

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

163

the respondents themselves for the respondents to remain in the company along
with the appellants and therefore the circumstances warranted that the respondents
be directed to sell their shares to the appellants at a value to be ascertained by the
valuer appointed on the basis of the balance-sheet.
X RIGHTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS
With regard to the question of shareholders right to inspect the register of members
in Rajendra G. Patel v. Sanghi Industries Ltd.,54 the CLB has held that as the
Companies Act, 1956 has provided a right to the members or debenture holders of
inspection of the statutory registers and records, there is no bar on a member
seeking inspection of the documents irrespective of the fact when he became a
member of the company. The right to inspect the documents of the company is a
mandatory provision and the CLB could compel an immediate inspection on failure
by the company to provide such rights to a member or shareholder.
XI DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY
Under the Companies Act, 1956 there were no direct provisions mentioning
about the duties and responsibilities of the directors of a company. The Act55 only
stipulated for the general powers of the board of directors. The new act 2013 has
introduced provisions specifying duties and responsibilities of the directors of a
company such as independent directors, conduct and responsibilities of the
directors, mandatory director appointment etc. With regard to the liability of the
directors for offence committed by the company, the apex court in a number of
cases56 held that the directors of a company can be made vicariously liable for a
criminal offence only if he was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the
business of the company at the time of commission of an offence.
Following the judicial precedents the Kerala High Court in Briji Gopal Daga
v. State of Kerala,57held that under section 14158 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881(NIA, 1881) a person sought to be made liable should be in charge of
and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant
time. The important question raised in the present case was whether a non-executive

54 [2013] 176 Comp Cas 49.

55 S. 291 to 314 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for the Directors duties and
responsibilities regarding the Company matters.
56 S.M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, [2005] 127 comp Cas 563, 578 (SC);
National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, [2010]154 Comp
Cas 313 (SC); State of NCT of Delhi v. Rajiv Khurana, [2010] 158 Comp Cas 151
(SC).
57 [2013] 181 Comp Cas 320 (Ker).
58 S 141of the NIA, 1881 stipulates that if the person committing an offence under
section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed,
was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business

164

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

independent director of a company who is not concerned with the management of

the day to day affairs of the company would be held liable for the dishonor of a
cheque issued by the company under section 141 of the NIA, 1881? The court
observed that A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of
section 141 of the NIA, 1881 is that the person sought to be made liable should be
in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the
relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a
director in such cases. With regard to the appointment of directors in the company
in Kumbakonams case59 it was held that the appointment a director in place of
retirement of a director shall be made only in Annual General Meeting (AGM)
and not in extra-ordinary general meeting.
In a plethora of cases the apex court has clearly laid down the law that the
authorization in the form of a power of attorney may given to a director through a
resolution of the board meeting. For the issue whether a person holding a power of
attorney given by the payee of the cheque or the holder in due course can file a
complaint on behalf of the payee of the cheque or the holder in due course, was
the question before the Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan v. State of
Maharashtra.60 Answering the question in the affirmative the Supreme Court held
that section 200 of the Cr PC, 1973, does not create any embargo that the attorney
holder of legal representative cannot be a complainant. The power of attorney
holder is the agent of the grantor. When the grantor authorises the attorney holder
to initiate legal proceedings and the attorney holder accordingly initiates such
legal proceedings, he does so as the agent of the grantor and the initiation is by the
grantor represented by his attorney holder and not by the attorney holder in his
personal capacity. The power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own
name as if he were the complainant. In other words, he can initiate criminal
proceedings on behalf of the principal. However when the power of attorney holder
of the complainant does not have personal knowledge about the transactions, he
cannot be then examined and, therefore, in such a case, he cannot file a complaint.
Likewise in Jer Rutton Kasvasmaneck (alias Jer Jawahar Thadani) v.
Gharda Chemicals Ltd.61for the issue whether it is obligatory to appoint a proxy
through the form of proxy prescribed in schedule IX, the court held that where a
company (which was a member of another company) had given a power of attorney
in favour of another company and while it was in force on the date of the
of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence
and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that
nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if
he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had
exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
59 Infra note 67.
60 [2013] 180 Comp Cas 258 (SC).
61 [2013] 177 Comp Cas 268.
62 [2013] 180 Comp Cas 124 (CLB).

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

165

extraordinary general meeting, that company was authorized to vote in the

extraordinary general meeting. Similarly whether the proxies in the proper format
were lodged or not also had lost significance. The power of attorney executed by
the appellants in favour of somebody included power to vote on behalf of the
appellants; so long as any instrument contains all the requisite particulars set out
in the form in schedule IX, it can be treated as proxy.
In Tarjitsingh Bakhatawarsing Batth v. Ratan Wood P. Ltd.,62 the court
discussed an issue of great significance in regard to the validity of decisions taken
at board meeting in the absence of proper quorum, especially private companies,
where chances of absence of a quorum are often. The issue was where a company
had only two directors, in the absence of the petitioner there could not be any
quorum to transact business at the meeting and therefore appointment of a director
at a meeting attended by only one of the two directors was invalid? The court
decided the issue affirmatively and interpreted section 28763 and clarified the
concept of total strength as the total strength of the board of directors of a
company as determined in pursuance of the Act, after deducting the number of
directors, if any, whose places may be vacant at that time. Needless to state, in
determining the total strength the number of the directors occupying the position
of directors (excluding alternative directions, if any) shall be taken into account.
However, the alternative director/s present at a meeting will be counted for quorum.
In Surya Elevators and Escalators India P. Ltd. v. Union of India64 the
Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition and held that one of the directors of
the third respondent-company alone had issued no objection certificate for
incorporation of the petitioner-company despite a specific resolution passed by
the board of directors of the third company that none of the two directors should
without the consent of another issue no objection certificate.
XII COMPANY LAW BOARD
While examining the power and ambit of the CLB under section 402 of the
act, the court held that the interest of the company vis--vis shareholders must be
the uppermost in the mind of the court while exercising the power under section
402 of the Companies Act, 1956. Indeed, the limitation of the power of the company
Law Board was addressed by Bombay High Court in Shah Pulp and Paper Mills
Ltd. v. Pravinchandra Hirji Shah,65 wherein the court held that the CLBs powers
under section 402 of the Act are wide in nature; but there must be some nexus
between the complaint made and the relief granted. There are some limitations to

63 According to sub-sec (1) of s. 287 the quorum for a meeting of the board of directors
of any company, public or private, shall be one-third of the total strength of the board,
or two directors, whichever is higher. According to sub-sec (2) of s. 287, any fraction
(whether greater or smaller than half) shall be rounded off as one.
64 [2013] 177 Comp Cas 230 (Karn).
65 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 36 (Bom).

166

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

CLBs power and one of them is that there should be nexus between the facts and
proof of allegations of the petitioners and the relief granted. It observed that the
exercise of the powers by the CLB cannot be divorced from the case of alleged
oppression made out by the petitioner before the CLB and other existing
circumstances which may necessitate such directions being issued. There must
be some basis for the CLB to issue direction in proceedings under section 397 of
the 1956 Act.
XIII COMPANY MEETINGS
Section 18666 of the Companies Act, 1956 stipulates about the power of the
CLB to order for convening the company meetings. The Indian judiciary in a
plethora of cases have interpreted section 186 and laid down certain important
principles pertaining to this section. The court have clarified that although the
power given to the CLB under section 186 of the act is in the nature of a
discretionary power, the board may exercise this power if it is fully satisfied that
there is an impracticability to call the general meeting in the usual way.
The aspect of impracticability to convene a company meeting under section
186 of the Companies Act, 1956 was challenged in Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit
Fund Ltd. v. S. Kalyanasundaram 67 wherein the CLB in exercise of its power
under section 186(1), directed the company to conduct an extraordinary general
body meeting. The petitioner contended that it had become impracticable to
approach the company with a request to call for an extraordinary general meeting
in view of the intimidating attitude of the respondents and the inability of the
petitioners to fulfill the one-tenth share criterion to make the requisition as required
under section 169(4) of the Act. On appeal, the high court held, allowing the
appeals, that the CLB while deciding the question as to whether intervention of
the court was warranted or not had gone to the extent of deciding against the
validity of removal of directors and appointment of fresh directors and rendered a
specific finding as if there was flagrant violation of procedural law and principles
of natural justice and it was against corporate democracy. The court criticized the
Boards decision as the CLB had not considered the allegations raised by the
groups against each other, by appreciating the overall circumstances. The findings
were rendered mainly by highlighting the allegations raised on the side of the
petitioners in the petition and hence were one sided and one of the main grounds
of which the impracticability to convene the meeting was decided by the CLB
hence the decision on impracticability to convene any meeting on such findings
was perverse.

66 S.186 of the companies act stipulates about the power of Company Law Board to
order for a meeting.
67 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 133 (Mad).

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

167

The high court held that Power of CLB to direct convening of extraordinary
general meeting to be exercised only when impracticable to call meeting in manner
prescribed under Act or articles of association. In this regard the court observed:
[l]ack of requisite number of shares is the statutory
requirements and pre-requisite to call for an extraordinary
general meeting. However, it cannot be one of the grounds on
which the question of impracticability is decided. The expression
impracticable is not to be construed as impossible. The word
impracticable means impracticable from a reasonable point
of view. The court must take a common sense view of the
matter and must act as a prudent person of business. It must not
be held impracticable on the slightest excuse that the directors
cannot agree. Under section 186, the power of the court can be
exercised only when it is impracticable to call for a meeting of a
company, other than an annual general meeting, in any manner
in which other meetings of the company may be called or to
hold or conduct the meeting of the company in the manner
prescribed by the Act or the articles. The failure on the part of
the petitioners to resort to any other mode as prescribed under
the Act, disentitled them to invoke the power of the court under
section 186 of the act. The order passed was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Company Law Board vested upon it under
section 186 of the Act and the order was the outcome of total
non-application of mind and was biased.
XIV COLLECTRIVE INVESTMENT SCHEME BY SEBI
Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, dealt with the regulations on Collective
Investment Scheme (CIS), according to which a scheme of arrangement where
contributions, or payments made by the investors are utilized with a view to receive
profits, income, produce or property, and are managed by a manager on behalf of
the investors is a CIS.
In P. G. F. Ltd. v. Union of India68 the apex court imposed costs on a
Chandigarh registered company which was involved in the sale and development
of agricultural lands. The costs were imposed while hearing an appeal filed by
PGF against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this case, a
scheme was concerning development of land purchased by the customers under
an agreement and the customers were assured of high amount of appreciation in
value of land after development. The scheme comprised uncertainty in transactions.
The promoters of the scheme failed to demonstrate how lands would be developed.
The Supreme Court held that the nature of activity fell under the definition of
collective investment scheme and hence the promoters were under obligation to
comply with the directions of the SEBI. The challenge to the vires of section
68 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 352 (SC).

168

Annual Survey of Indian Law

[2013

11AA was held to be without substantive ground. The court further ruled that the
power of Parliament to make law to regulate collective investment schemes does
not encroach upon activity of sale and development of agricultural land.
In the similar vein the court observed:69
section 11AA of the SEBI Act section 11AA(2), which defines
a collective investment scheme discloses that it is not restricted
to any particular commercial activity such as in a shop or any
other commercial establishment or even agricultural operation
or transportation or shipping or entertainment industry, etc. The
definition only seeks to ascertain and identify any scheme or
arrangement, irrespective of the nature of business, which attracts
investors to invest their funds at the instance of someone else
who comes forward to promote such scheme or arrangement in
any field and such scheme or arrangement provides for the
various consequences. As a matter of fact the provision does
not make any reference to agricultural or any other specific
activity and there is no question of testing the validity of section
11AA in the anvil of entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution. Section 11AA was not intended to cover an
activity relating to agriculture and its development and, therefore,
does not conflict with entry 18 of List II of the State List. Section
11AA is not intended to affect the development of agricultural
land or any other operation connected therewith or put any spokes
in such sale-cum-development of such agricultural land. By
seeking to cover any scheme or arrangement by way of collective
investment scheme either in the field of agricultural or any other
commercial activity, the purport is only to ensure that the scheme
providing for investment gets registered with the authority
concerned and the provision would further seek to regulate such
schemes in order to ensure that any such investment based on
any promise under the scheme or arrangement is truly operated
upon in a lawful manner and that by operating such scheme or
arrangement the person who makes the investment is able to
really reap the benefit and that he is not defrauded. The object
of introducing section 11AA was to protect gullible investors
most of whom are poor and uneducated or retired personnel or
those who belong to the middle income group and who seek to
invest their hard earned retirement benefits or savings in such
schemes with a view to earn some sustained benefits or with the
fond hope that such investment will appreciate in course of time.

69 Id. para.32.

Vol. XLIX]

Company Law

169

XV SECURITIES
For shares in a public limited company to come within the definition of
securities as defined under section 2(h)(i) of the Act they have to be marketable.
The word, marketable has been equated with the word saleable. However, when
the statute prohibits or limits transfer of shares to a specified category of people
with onerous conditions or restrictions, the right of shareholders to transfer or the
free transferability is jeopardized and in that case those shares with these limitations
cannot be said to be marketable. In Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Peerless
General Finance Investment Co. Ltd.70 the Supreme Court has held that shares of
unlisted public companies are securities within Securities Contracts (Regulation)
Act, 1956 and hence refusal by such a company to register a transfer which was in
violation of the provisions of Act was justified. Therefore, shares in a public limited
company though not listed in the stock exchange come within the definition of
securities and hence, the provisions of the Act apply. From the fact that the Act
was enacted to prevent undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the
business of dealing therein one cannot infer that it applies only to transfer of
shares on the stock exchange. The provisions of the Act would cover unlisted
securities of public limited companies. In other words, shares in a public limited
company not listed in the stock exchange are covered within the ambit of the Act.
XVI CONCLUSION
Although the new Companies Act, 2013 has offered many new provisions
for protecting the interest of the investors and the stakeholders, the act also includes
few favorable provisions for the functioning of the companies which may be
misused in future. If implemented in true spirit, the new Act, will bring impeccable
record of growth and prosperity in the corporate sector in India.

70 [2013] 179 Comp Cas 421 (SC).