High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G.L. Oza, C.J. and B.M. Lal, J.
Kilpest Private Ltd.
Versus
Shekhar Mehra
COMPANY APPEAL 2 of 1984 Of
Decided On : Jan 25,1985
In winding up petition under section 433 (f) of the Companies Act, the workers of the company, have the same locus standi as that of share-holder bas and, therefore, they have equal right to appear and oppose the winding up of the company as the worker are not mere vendors of toil and they are not a marketable commodity to be purchased by the owners of capital. They are producers of wealth as much as capital. Applying this concept that the company is not only the property of the shareholders, the filing of petition under section 433 (f) of the Companies Act for its winding up without the active representation of the workers of the company is not at all maintainable and no order for its winding up could be passed without the express consent of the workers of the company. AIR 1983 SC 75 relied on. [Para 35
(2) Companies Act, 1956-Ss. 433, 397 & 398-application under sections 397 & 398-can not be converted to a petition under section 433 (f).
For winding up petition and for petition under sections 397, 398 etc. there are distinguishable features and, therefore, the petition under sections 397 and 398 could not be converted into a winding up petition under section 433 (f) of the Act. [Para 37
(3) Companies Act, 1956-8, 433 (f )-term 'just and equitable'-change in the concept of-for passing an order for winding up the Court should reach conclusion based on sound principles and the circumstances.
(4) Words & Phrases-term 'just and equitable'-changing concept of meaning of.
The term "just and equitable" has undergone a radical change in the Indo-socio economic condition in our country. The term "just and equitable' bas lost its technical meaning and has acquired a more meaningful and pragmatic one. Unless and until the Court reaches the conclusion based on sound principles and considering all the circumstances and facts of each case, an order for winding up of the company should not be passed. AIR 1976 SC 565 relied on. [Para 43
(5) Companies Act, 1956-Ss. 397 & 398-misconduct prior to three years -do not warrant filing of an application under sections 397 & 398.
(6) Limitation Act, 1963-Art. 137-applies to an application under sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act-limitation when staffs.
To invoke the provisions of sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies. [ Para 45
(7) Companies Act, 1956-Ss.433 (f) & 443 (2)-alternative remedy must resort first to be had to such alternative remedy.
Section 433 (f) must be read with section 443 (2) of the Companies Act. The party who has an alternative remedy must resort to the alternative remedy available to him under sections 163, 167, 210 & 220 of the Companies Act. [Para 48
( 1. ) THE decision in this company appeal shall also dispose of Company Appeal No. 2 of 1984 (Kilpest Private Ltd, v. Shekhar Mehra ).
( 2. ) THIS is an appeal preferred under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the company, the managing director and the director of the company against an order dated August 6, 1984, passed by the learned company judge whereby the learned company judge by his order dated August 6, 1984, passed the order for converting the original petition made under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 450 of the Companies Act/1956, into one under Section 433 (f) read with rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, holding that the petition shall now be tried as a petition for winding up of the company under the "just and equitable" clause contained in Section 433 (f) of the Companies Act, 1956.
( 3. ) THE short facts leading to this appeal are as under : The respondent, Shri Shekhar Mehra, initially filed a petition under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 450 of the Companies Act before the company judge on October 1, 1983, praying for starting investigation into the affairs of the company (appellant No. 1) for removing the present board of directors and for quashing the resolution of the board of directors of the company purported to have been passed in the extraordinary general meeting held on January 15, 1983, and relating to alterations in the articles of association Nos. 84, 85, 86, 91 and 93 of the company and for the grant of any other relief or reliefs which the company court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
( 4. ) THE first appellant, M/s. Kilpest Private Ltd. (in brief, the company), was promoted by appellant No. 2, Shri R. K. Dubey, and the respondent, Shri Shekhar Mehra. These two promoters were the only shareholders in the company, each holding 50 shares. On May 27, 1972, appellant No. 1, M/s. Kilpest Private Ltd. , Bhopal, was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Appellant No. 2 and the respondent, Shri Shekhar Mehra, and the two signatories to the memorandum and articles of association were the first directors of the company. The companys initial authorised capital was Rs. 2,00,000 divided into 2,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. But in the same year, the capital was raised to Rs. 5,00,000.
( 5. ) THE company has multifarious objects, such as :
(a) To manufacture, import, export, buy, sell or otherwise deal in pesticides, insecticides, medicinal and toilet goods, etc. ; (b) To carry on all or any of the business of manufacturers, importers, exporters, stockists, distributors, wholesale and retail dealers and suppliers of commodities, manufactured goods, stores, materials, provision and produce ; (c) To take over or acquire by way of purchase, lease, etc. , land rights including all mines, beds, veins and seams, for purposes of digging, quarrying and allied operations, etc.
( 6. ) THE registered office of the company is situated at 7-C, Industrial Area, Govindpura, Bhopal. As stated above, the authorised capital of the company was Rs. 2,00,000 divided into 2,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The company increased its share capital from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 3,25,000 and later on to Rs. 5,00,000 and then to Rs. 10,00,000.
( 7. ) APPELLANT No, 2, Shri R. K. Dubey, holds equity shares of the value of Rs. 1,37,000 ; members of his family and associates own equity shares of the value of Rs. 3,13,000 whereas the respondent has 600 shares of the value of :rs. 100 each and members of his family own 900 shares.
( 8. ) THE shareholdings of two groups, i. e. , appellant No. 2s group are Rs -. 5,50,000 whereas that of the respondents group are of the value of Rs. 1,50,000.
( 9. ) IN the year 1982, appellant No. 2 issued equity shares of the value of Rs. 1,75,000 to himself, his wife, relatives and associates.
( 10. ) THE respondent alleged that appellant No. 2 again issued equity shares of Rs. 1,00,000 to himself, his wife, relatives and associates from January, 19
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.