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

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 294

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Yogesh Khanna, Judicial Member
Suresh Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
J.B. Daruka Papers Ltd – Respondent
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.261-263/2025



For Appellant:Mr Arun Kathpalia, Sr Advocate, Mr. Rajnish Sinha, Ms Aadiya Siunha, Mr Siddarth Shankar, Mr Ashutosh Sharma, Mr Aditya, Advocates.
For Respondent:Mr. Yogesh Jagia, Ms Nitya Ahuja, Ms Diksha Varma, Mr Abhinav Anand, Advocates.

Unfulfilled family settlement bid terms and disputed documents justify restoring ousted directors in oppression proceedings; administrator may seek forensic examination for buyout disputes.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397, 398, 420(b), 192 - Company Law Board Regulations - Regulation 44 - Oppression and mismanagement - Family company dispute - Bidding terms for company control reduced to writing on 04.02.2008 - Alleged resignation letters and partial payments - Full settlement terms not complied with - Personal guarantees replaced without knowledge - Increase in authorised share capital without notice - Rights issue without notice - Forgery allegations on resignation letters, family settlement deed - Non-production of books of accounts, receipts despite directions - No share transfer deeds executed - Highest bidder failed to pay full bid amount - Administrator appointed to manage company - Forensic examination of disputed documents deferred unless required for buyout determination. (Paras 1-25)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - NCLAT - Scope - Interference limited - Where settlement conditions unfulfilled, ouster via alleged forged resignations constitutes oppression - Dispute on quantum payable to exiting groups to be resolved civilly - Administrator at liberty to seek forensic scrutiny of cash payment receipts if denied. (Paras 25)

Facts of the case:
Family groups in company dispute entered oral MOU for bidding company control, terms written on 04.02.2008. Appellants highest bidders, alleged resignations submitted, partial payment made, balance claimed in cash. Respondents denied full payment, alleged forgery of resignations and settlement deed, non-compliance with bid terms, ouster without notice, unauthorised board expansion, share capital increase and rights issue without notice leading to NCLT order restoring directorships and appointing administrator.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order modified to permit administrator to seek forensic examination of disputed cash receipts if needed for buyout; no other relief granted.

Issues: Whether restoration of ousted directors justified despite alleged settlement compliance; validity of resignation letters and payments; jurisdiction over quantum disputes; need for forensic examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where bid settlement terms remain unfulfilled, full payment not made to all groups, and documents disputed with admissions of forgery, ouster constitutes oppression; company court lacks jurisdiction for specific performance; administrator to oversee with liberty for forensic probe on key documents.

Result: Appeal disposed of with modification; pending applications disposed of.

Table of Content
1. family dispute over company bid settlement in 2008. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. appellants claim valid bid, resignations, partial payments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondents allege forgery, non-compliance, oppression. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. unauthorized share capital increase constitutes oppression. (Para 18 , 19)
5. settlement unimplemented for shambhu nath group. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. modify order for potential forensic examination. (Para 25)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

This appeal has been filed against an impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Allahabad alleging the Ld. NCLT has restored Respondents No.2, 4 and 5 as directors inspite of ignoring they had handed over their resignation letters to Ld. Mediator, Shri Murari Lal Mathahelia, their real paternal uncle/Phupha, in February, 2008 itself.

2. It is the case of the appellants they have been managing Respondent No.1 company since 2008 i.e. for the last 17 years but by way of the impugned order, the management has been displaced. It is argued Respondent No.1 is a family company and earlier its management was with three groups viz the branches of three brothers i.e., the Vishwanath Group-the appellants; Jagdish Group and Mr. Shambhoo Nath Group, the respondents. The family was doing various businesses and one of it was run by a company namely M/s J.B. Daruka Papers Ltd i.e. Respondent No.1.

3. It was argued there were certain disputes between the parties in 2008 but with the help of Mr. Murari Lal Mathahelia, their real paternal uncle/Phupha, MOU was entered into, though orally and it was agreed there shall be a bid of the company/Respondent No.1, by three groups above and it shall go to the highest bidder. The terms of the bid were reduced in writing on 04.02.2008 and were signed by the parties. Such bidding terms were as under: -

1. Reserve Price of Bid has been decided at Rs. 4.00 Crore, 2. Minimum Bid difference is 1 0.00 Laks between Two Bids, of each Bidder, 3. Terms of payment after Bid finalization are as under: -

a) Loan repayment of Loans of close friends & Relatives - shall be within ·15 days.

b) Payment of Share Capital and other payment shall be- 1. 25% of payment within next 15 days, 2. 25% of Balance within next 15 days, 3. 50% of Balance within next 15 days, but upto 31.03.08.

c) During this period interest @ 12% shall be paid on the payment duration.

d) Bid should be for land, Plant a machinery and Building (all), 4. In case of non-payment after 1.4.08, penal interest @ 36% Per Year shall be charged for first 15 days i.e. upto 15.4.08, and thereafter Penal interest @ 50% Per Year shall be charged on outstanding Payable balance, 5. Personal Guarantee of Directors who are outgoing shall be withdrawn from PNB (Term) Loan before use of Term Loan amount.

6. Interest on loan amount shall be paid upto 15.4.08 for the year ending 31.3.08.

4. It is the alleged the bidding took place on 04.02.2008 and the appellants became the highest bidder and in consequence thereof resignation letters were submitted by the Respondents to their uncle namely Murari Lal, which letters were then deposited with the ROC. Though as per the bid document, as alleged amount of Rs.20.80 crores was payable by the appellants, though is disputed to be Rs.36 crores by the Respondents.

5. It was also argued out of the bid amount, an amount of Rs.2.20,40,000/- was paid by cheque to the respondents and the remaining amount was paid in cash. Reliance thereto was made to an affidavit dated 12.07.2013 of Mr. C.L. Kanoria, the brother of their Phupha, -Sh Murari Lal stating inter alia the balance amounts were paid in cash to the Respondent’s groups.

6. The appellants allege in April, 2009 Respondents came rushing to the Court complaining of various acts viz they never received cash; their resignation letters as well as settlements were all forged and right issue which was issued in the meanwhile, they were not given any notice thereof.

7. Qua the denial of sign

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top