SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Ram Parshotam Mittal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3934 & 3935 of 2017
Decided On : 10-05-2019
(A) Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 87 and 286 – Validity of Resolution – Resolution passed by Director may be perfectly legal and yet oppressive and conversely a resolution which is in contravention of law may be in interest of shareholders of company – Every illegality will not make it oppressive – Prejudice has to be shown – No complaint of oppression could be entertained merely on the ground of failure to attach notice of Board meeting was an act of illegality – It has to be shown that action was unfair to person to whom notice has not been given and causes prejudice to him in exercise of legal and proprietary rights as shareholders – Absence of notice is enough to invalidate Resolution as mandated by Section 286. (Paras 75 and 76)
(B) Companies Act, 1956 – Section 87 – Right to vote – Notice has to be issued to preference shareholders also for meeting and they have right to participate in the meeting – Even if dividend has not been declared, in that case also, preference shareholders shall have a right to vote in meeting. (Para 83)
(C) Companies Act, 1956 – Section 108 read with Sections 286 and 300 – Transfer of shares – Section 108 operates independently of Section 286 or Section 300 – Invalidation of meeting is dependent under provisions of Section 108 – There was violation of Section 108 of Companies Act. HQRL did not file share certificate along with duly executed share transfer form as on date of Board resolution – Judgment passed by High Court, setting aside order passed by Company Law Board in Company Petition upheld. (Paras 87, 88 and 89)
Facts of Case:
Present appeal arises out of judgment dated 31.5.2013 passed by High Court of Delhi, setting aside order dated 31.1.2006 passed by Company Law Board in Company Petition.
Findings of Court:
High Court has also ordered proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Mr. R.P. Mittal for filing an affidavit to contrary. High Court has relied on the affidavit of concerned officials of Indian Overseas Bank. High Court has found that share certificates were delivered to Mr. R.P. Mittal not on 23.6.2003 but on 23.6.2005. No doubt about it that there was violation of provisions of section.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31.5.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi, setting aside an order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Company Law Board in Company Petition No.64/2005.
2. The backdrop facts indicate that the Government of India took a policy decision on 5.7.2002 to disinvest its shares in the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (in short, ‘the ITDC’) which owns various hotel properties; one of them being Indraprastha Hotel, formerly known as Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas, (hereinafter referred to as “the hotel”).
3. In terms of an approved scheme of Arrangement of Demerger the hotel was transferred to the Respondent No.1 Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. (in short, ‘HQRL’) which was created as a Special Purpose Vehicle to enable disinvestment. The paid up capital of HQRL was Rs.90 lakhs comprising 9 lakh equity shares of Rs.10 each, of which the Government of India held 89.97% shares. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (IHCL) held 10% shares and the balance shares were held by the employees of hotels of ITDC under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
4. Pursuant to its decision to disinvest, the Government invited bids for sale of shares in HQRL. The appellant No.3 - Moral Trading & Investment Ltd., in short hereinafter referred to as ‘Moral’, a public limited company, was declared the successful bidder.
5. By a share purchase agreement dated 8.10.2002 Moral acquired the shares of Government of India and IHCL in HQRL for a sum of Rs.45 crores. Out of this, Rs.33.37 crores was obtained by way of loans from banks. 99.97% shares of HQRL being held by Moral, HQRL became Moral’s subsidiary.
6. Appellant No.1, Mr. R.P. Mittal, and the appellant No.2, Mrs. Sarla Mittal, who held the controlling interest in Moral, and the Respondent No.3, Mr. Ashok Mittal, younger brother of the Appellant No.1, Mr. R.P. Mittal were appointed as Additional Directors of HQRL on 8.10.2002, and later, regular Directors at the Annual General Meeting of HQRL held on 28.12.2002.
7. On 30.9.2002 HQRL passed a resolution in its Extra Ordinary General Meeting (EOGM) to change its status from ‘private limited’ to ‘limited’ company. The said resolution was rejected by the Registrar of Companies on the ground of late filing and according to the appellants, HQRL had not filed it again with the Registrar of Companies nor had removed the defects.
8. On 21.12.2002 a Board meeting of HQRL was held. Moral transferred 13 equity shares valued at Rs.10/- per equity share of HQRL to 7 persons, i.e. 2 shares to the appellant No.1, Mr. R.P. Mittal, 3 shares to the appellant No.2, Mrs. Sarla Mittal, one share to the respondent No.3, Mr. Ashok Mittal and 7 shares to 4 daughters of the appellant Nos.1 and 2, R.P. Mittal’s family thus held 99.97% equity shares, as against one equity share held by his brother, Mr. Ashok Mittal.
9. On 28.12.2002 Annual General Meeting (AGM) of HQRL was held in which authorised capital was increased from Rs.90 lakhs to Rs.33 crores. The AGM was attended by Mr. Ashok Mittal. There was an increase of 71 lakh equity shares of Rs.10 each and 25 lakh preference shares of Rs.100 per share and a Special Business Resolution No.10 was passed under section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Companies Act’). The appointment of Mr. R.P. Mittal, Mrs. Sarla Mittal and Mr. Ashok Mittal to the Board of Directors was approved by the majority of the shareholders of Moral. Mr. R.P. Mittal and Mrs. Sarla Mittal were appointed as whole time Directors. The Memorandum of Association of HQRL was also amended. Article IV (4) of Articles of Association was amended to state that the preference shares would not carry any voting rights.
10. On 19.3.2003, Mr. R.P. Mittal, Chairman of HQRL issued letter to the Respondent No.2 Hillcrest Realty SDN BHD Malaysia (for short, ‘Hillcrest’) inviting subscription in 8.5% cumulative redeemable preference shares of Rs.100 each up to Rs.30 crores. On 3.4.2003, the hotel was closed for renovatio
Sri Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. The Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 543 – Referred [Para 53]
State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karamchari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694 – Relied [Para 65]
Mrs.Bacha F. Guzdar, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Sri Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 543 – Referred [Para 72]
M/s. Kothari Textiles Ltd., Madras & Ors. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Mannalal Khetan & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Khetan & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 424 – Referred [Para 86]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.