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

2025 Supreme(Cal) 651

In the High Court at Calcutta
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.
Rajib Paul And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Veteran Company Private Limited & Ors. – Respondent
APO 114 of 2010, IA No. ACO 6 of 2015 (Old No. ACO 23 of 2015), ACO 7 of 2017 (Old No. ACO 95 of 2017), ACO 8 of 2017 (Old No. ACO 114 of 2017), ACO 9 of 2018 (Old No. ACO 43 of 2018)
Decided On : 02-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellants : Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhayay, Sr. Adv., Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Adv., Ms. Nibedita Pal, Adv., Ms. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Sonam Ray, Adv., Ms. Nasrin Khatoon, Adv., Ms. Arundhati Barman Roy,Adv., Mr. Abhishek Jai
For the respondents: Mr. Arif Ali, Adv., Ms. S. Bhattacherji, Adv.

The legitimacy of share transfers and directorship must comply with the company's Articles of Association, and findings lacking evidence can be deemed legally erroneous.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 10F - Appeal against CLB order - The appeal addresses the legality of share transfers and the authority of directors, highlighting the requirement of compliance with Articles of Association - The Company Law Board's order was found to be perverse as it did not consider material evidence regarding shareholdings and allotments. (Paras 2, 4, 11, 12)

(B) Articles of Association - Validity of share transfers - Shares are subject to restrictions on transfers, requiring transfers to comply with the provisions regarding ex-military personnel - The court affirmed that all transactions contrary to these provisions are deemed null and void. (Paras 2, 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a CLB ruling that canceled certain share transfers and director appointments, asserting that the sons of current members became shareholders through illegitimate means rather than legitimate allotments. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the cancellations of shareholdings and removal of directors were unfounded and contravened established company records, reinstating their positions and share rights. (Paras 11, 12)

Issues: The principal issues included whether the appellants were legitimate directors and shareholders, and the legality of share transfers not complying with the company's Articles of Association. (Paras 5, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that the validity of shareholding is determined by adherence to the Articles of Association, and findings made without supporting evidence may constitute legal errors warranting correction. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is modified, reinstating the appellants’ shares and directorial status.

Table of Content
1. factual background of company formation. (Para 2)
2. details of share transfer violations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. challenges to shareholding legitimacy. (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's analysis on shareholding rights. (Para 10 , 11)
5. final orders and modifications. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

Judgment :

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

1. This is an appeal under section 10F of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956 directed against an order dated 5 June, 2009 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB).

2. The brief facts culminating in the filing of this appeal are as follows:

a) In or about 1973, the Ministry of Defence had recommended the names of the following individuals for running a retail outlet at Haldia:

i) Rakhal Chandra Paul,

ii) Beni Madhab Das,

iii) Niranjan Ghosh,

iv) Sukumar Ray,

v) Provakar Das Gupta,

vi) Nilmani Sarkar and

vii) Major Nityananda Ray.

b) Pursuant to the above, on 21 January, 1974, the respondent no.1 namely Veteran Company Private Limited (the company) was incorporated by the above 7 ex-servicemen. At the time of incorporation, the Articles of Association of the company, inter alia, provided as follows:

“Article 6 – Subject to the provisions of these Articles the shares shall be under the control of the Board who may allot or otherwise dispose of the same to such persons on such terms and conditions at such times either at par or at a premium and for such consideration as the Board thinks fit, subject to the provision that no such share of the company be allotted to any person unless he is a person, who is an ex-military/retired personnel from military service under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.”

“Article 37: No transfer shall be made to a minor or person of unsound mind and to any person unless he is a person who is an Ex-Military/Retired Military personnel from Military service under the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India.”

“Article 41 – The executor or administrator of a deceased member (not being one of several joint holders) shall be the only person recognised by the company as having any title to this share registered in the name of such member, and in the case of the death of any one or more of the joint holders of any registered share. The survivor shall be only person recognised by the company as having any title to or interest in such share but nothing herein contained shall be taken to release the estate of a deceased joint holder from any liability on this share held by him jointly with any other person. Before recognising any executor or administrator the Board may require him to obtain a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration or other legal representation, as the case may be from a competent Court in India and having effect in Calcutta. Provided nevertheless shall be lawful for the Board to dispense with the production of probate or Letters of Administration or such other legal representation upon such terms as to indemnify or otherwise as the Board, in its absolute discretion, may consider adequate.”

“Article 78 – Director must hold at least one ordinary share.

Amended Article 37- No transfer of shares shall be made to a minor or a person of unsound mind or to any outsiders, excepting the next generation and kith and kins only of the existing directors and in case of the admission of ex-military/retired personnel from the military services under the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, subject to such approval of the Board of Directors and necessary permission of the Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India at New Delhi. ”

c) Sometimes in 1984, one of the shareholders, Major Nityananda Ray died intestate. Despite his demise, none of his legal heirs applied for transmission of the shares held by him.

d) On 6 February, 1998, Nilmani Sarkar informed the company that he had transferred his entire shareholding aggregating 243 shares to one Amal Kirshna Das. Such transfer was in violation of Article 37 of the Articles of Association. Amal Krishna Das was neither a membe

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