SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
Kalani Industries Private Limited And Others - Applicants
In The Matter Between :
Sicom Limited - Petitioner
Versus 
The Official Liquidator, High Court Bombay And Others – Respondents
Company Application No.248 of 2019 In Company Petition No. 487 of 2014 With Interim Application No.387 of 2020 In Company Petition No.487 of 2014 With official liquidator’s report no.114 of 2020 In Company Petition No.487 of 2014
Decided on : 09-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate, Mr.Chirag Sarawagi i/b Tushar Goradia, Advocate, Mr. Nakul Jain a/w Ms. Riya Thakkar i/b Mr. Pravin Metha & Mithi & Co., Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Rushabh Sheth, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Official Liquidator, Mr. Chetan Shelke, Assistant Official Liquidator

A call option creates an irrevocable right to receive shares, and its exercise post commencement of winding up can be validated if bona fides are established.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 536 (2) - Validation of sale and transfer of shares - The Applicants sought validation of the transfer of 2,34,000 equity shares pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated March 1, 2009, amended December 23, 2011 - The bona fides of the transaction were upheld by the Court, noting a pre-existing contractual agreement and continued failure of the counterparty to comply with its obligations. (Paras 9, 26, 34)

(B) Right of Call Option - The Applicants were vested with an irrevocable right to exercise a call option in case of non-compliance by the Company in Liquidation. The notice invoking the call option, along with subsequent acts, completed the transfer process, establishing that the transaction was valid despite winding-up proceedings initiated. (Paras 21, 34)

Facts of the case:
The Applicants, shareholders of Wanderland Real Estates Private Limited, exercised their call option under a MOU due to the counterparty's failure to inject promised capital, and the transfer was challenged post commencement of winding-up proceedings. (Paras 1, 2.21, 34)

Findings of Court:
The transfer of 2,34,000 shares was validated as the effectuation of the call option was authorized and complied with prior to the winding-up order, affirming the legal entitlement based on prior agreements. (Paras 34, 37)

Issues: Whether the transfer of shares post-winding-up petition was valid under Section 536(2), and if the Applicants had fulfilled their obligations to establish the bona fides of the transaction. (Paras 24, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a call option constitutes an irrevocable right, and the invocation thereof, along with prior actions, solidified the legal standing of the transaction, which further qualified for validation under equitable considerations. (Paras 26, 28)

Result: Applications allowed.

Table of Content
1. application for validation of share transfer (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments supporting the validation of shares by applicants (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. nature and enforceability of a call option (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. criteria for concluding share transfer’s legality (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. counterarguments regarding validity of share transfer (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court's examination of share transfer timelines and obligations (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. court’s considerations on bona fide transactions (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. court’s ruling on irrevocable rights under contracts (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. factors impacting the burden of proof on applicants (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
10. final ruling and orders in favor of applicants (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

ORDER. :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. The present Company Application has been filed under Section 536 (2) of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956 (Act) seeking validation of the sale and transfer of 2,34,000 equity shares of Wanderland Real Estates Private Limited (“WREPL”) effected on 4th September 2014 by Treasure World Developers Private Limited (TWDPL/the Company in Liquidation) in favour of Applicants. The said transfer was effected pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 01st March 2009 as amended by agreement dated 23rd December 2011.

2. The background facts are as under :

2.1 Around 2007 till 2009, the Applicants along with one Mr. Prem Swarup Kalani and one Mrs. Manisha Kalani (Applicant in Interim Application No. 387 of 2020) were holding 267,750 shares in WREPL.

2.2 In 2009, Mr. Manish Kalani Managing Director of Entertainment World Developers Pvt Ltd. (“EWDL”) proposed a collaboration involving its subsidiary TWDPL and WREPL. The existing shareholders, including the Applicants, agreed to the proposal.

2.3 Accordingly, on March 1, 2009 WREPL the Respondent No. 2 herein, TWDPL and the Applicants executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) whereby the Applicants agreed to transfer a total of 2,67,750 shares (“Sale/Subject Shares”) of WREPL amounting to 51% of WREPL’s equity shares to TWDPL for a total consideration of Rs. 80,32,500/-. As per the terms of the MOU and in particular Article 4.2 read with Annexure C, TWDPL was required to infuse Rs. 29.53 crores into WREPL within 9 (nine) months. And as per Article 5 of the MOU, a right was to be vested in the Applicants herein to exercise a call option in the event of TWDPL not complying with its obligations under Article 4.2 or 4.3 of the MOU.

2.4 On July 9, 2009, WREPL requested TWDPL to infuse Rs. 29.53 crores in WREPL within 9 months from the date of execution of the MOU, in terms of Article 4.2 read with Annexure C of the MOU. That on July 24, 2009 TWDPL replied to WREPL requesting extension of the timeline for infusion of funds upto December 2010 and assured WREPL that TWDPL shall raise the required funds within a period of 12-18 months from July 24, 2009.

2.5 On July 30, 2009 WREPL wrote to TWDPL agreeing to extend the timeline for infusion of funds upto June 30, 2010 and stated that a further extension beyond this period would not be possible.

2.6 On January 25th 2010, TWDPL wrote to WREPL again requesting for additional time to infuse funds and extension till March 31, 2011 as TWDPL’s Parent Company EWDL was planning to raise funds by way of an IPO.

2.7 That thereafter on March 19, 2010 WREPL reiterated that an extension beyond June 30, 2010 would not be possible and stated that if TWDPL failed to meet the June 30, 2010 deadline, WREPL would invoke the call option as provided under Article 5 which reads as follows :

“the Transferors shall any time after that have the right to (by way of written notice to be sent by the Authorized Person) require TWDPL to sell the Sale Shares back to the Transferors in such proportion as stated by the Authorized Person in the said notice (“Notice”). TWDPL shall in such an event deliver to the Transferors the relevant original share certificates and duly executed share transfer form










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top