1. Minority shareholder application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement following the allotment of new shares to outsiders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th January 1965
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Shanti Prasad Jain (In all the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
Kalinga Tubes Ltd. etc. (In all the Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 734 to 747 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M /s- S. Roy Chowdhry, M. L. Jhunjhunwala, S. Murty and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (in all the Appeals),
M/s. M. C. Setalvad, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Ranadeb Chaudhuri, Senior Advocates (Mr. M. K, Banerjee, Advocate and M/s..J.B. Dadachanji. O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondent No, 1.
Mr, Ranadeb Chaudhuri, Senior Advocate (Messrs J. B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 3.
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s-.J. B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 4.
Mr. Sachin Chaudhury, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s, Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Respondents Nos. 9, 10 and 12. 1537
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondent No. 13.
M/s. Sachin Choudhury and B. Sen, Senior Advocates (Mr. Dipak Dutta Choudhury, Advocate, with them), for Respondent No. 14.
Mr. Niren De, Addl. Solicitor General of India (M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No, 15.
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor General of India (M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., Advocates, with him), for Respondent No, 16.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.DUTTA, B.P.MAHESHVARI, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, CO., DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, G.S.PATHAK, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.BANERJI, M.L.JHUNJHUNVALA, N.C.CHATTERJI, NIREN DEY, O.C.MATHUR, P.L.VOHRA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, RANADEB CHOUDHURY, RAVINDER NARAYAN, Ravindra Narayan, S.MURTHY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.ROY CHAUDHARY, S.V.Gupta, Sachin Chandra Chawdhury
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.DUTTA, B.P.MAHESHVARI, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, CO., DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, G.S.PATHAK, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.BANERJI, M.L.JHUNJHUNVALA, N.C.CHATTERJI, NIREN DEY, O.C.MATHUR, P.L.VOHRA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, RANADEB CHOUDHURY, RAVINDER NARAYAN, Ravindra Narayan, S.MURTHY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.ROY CHAUDHARY, S.V.Gupta, Sachin Chandra Chawdhury
Oppression under Section 397 of the Companies Act requires "burdensome, harsh and wrongful" conduct involving a lack of probity regarding proprietary rights. Mere loss of confidence or being outvoted on domestic policy, without a visible departure from fair dealing, does not constitute oppression.
Headnote:(A) Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397 and 398 - Oppression and Mismanagement - Relief under Section 397 is available if the company's affairs are conducted in a manner oppressive to any member and winding up would unfairly prejudice such members, provided the facts otherwise justify a winding-up order on just and equitable grounds (Para 14). The term 'oppressive' means conduct that is "burdensome, harsh and wrongful," involving a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and a violation of the conditions of fair play (Para 18). Mere loss of confidence between shareholders or being outvoted on issues of domestic policy does not constitute oppression unless it springs from a lack of probity or fair dealing regarding the proprietary rights of a shareholder (Paras 18, 19).
(B) Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Section 81 - Issue of new shares - A public company may, via a resolution in a general meeting, direct that new shares be issued to persons other than existing shareholders. Such action, if intended to prevent any single group from obtaining dominating control and to make the company more broad-based, does not amount to oppression of the minority, provided the allottees are independent persons and not benamidars of the majority (Paras 23, 25, 28).
(C) Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Section 398 - Mismanagement - Conduct is prejudicial to the interests of the company only if it significantly harms the company's welfare. Slight delays in the receipt of share money or the repayment of debts to former managing agents do not constitute mismanagement or conduct prejudicial to the company's interests (Paras 32, 33).
Facts of the case:
A company, originally private and later converted to public, had an agreement between three groups of shareholders to maintain equal shareholding and board representation, although the company was not a party to this agreement. A dispute arose when the majority shareholders passed a resolution to issue new shares to outsiders rather than existing shareholders to prevent the minority group from gaining control. The minority shareholder alleged oppression and mismanagement, seeking the removal of the board and the setting aside of the share allotment.
Findings of Court:
The agreement was not binding on the company, particularly after its conversion to a public company. The allotment of shares to independent outsiders was a legal exercise of power under the Act and not oppressive. There was no evidence of mismanagement or conduct prejudicial to the company's interests.
Issues: Whether the issuance of new shares to outsiders in violation of a non-binding private agreement and the subsequent management changes constituted "oppression" under Section 397 or "mismanagement" under Section 398 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: Oppression requires a continuous course of conduct that is burdensome, harsh, and wrongful, involving a lack of probity in dealing with a member's proprietary rights. The exercise of majority voting power to issue shares to independent third parties to broaden the company's base is not oppressive. Mismanagement requires a showing of actual prejudice to the company's interests, which is not established by minor financial delays or legitimate debt repayments.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Minority claims oppression via share dilution and breach of agreement; majority contends the allotment was legal under Section 81 and not prejudicial to the company. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Allotment to independent persons via general meeting resolution under Section 81 does not constitute oppression unless it involves lack of probity or fair dealing. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. Oppression requires a visible departure from fair dealing and lack of probity regarding proprietary rights, not mere loss of confidence or being outvoted on domestic policy. (Para 18 , 19 )
5. Appeals dismissed; application for relief against oppression and mismanagement rejected. (Para 37 )
6. What constitutes oppression under Section 397 of the Companies Act?
Oppression involves a visible departure from standards of fair dealing and a violation of fair play, requiring an element of lack of probity or fair dealing regarding a member's proprietary rights, rather than mere resentment at being outvoted on domestic policy. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. Does a private agreement between shareholders bind a company, especially after conversion to a public company?
An agreement to which the company is not a party is not strictly binding on the company. Such binding force is further diminished when a private company converts into a public limited company. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 30 )
8. Can the allotment of new shares to outsiders be considered oppressive if done via a general meeting resolution?
No, if the allotment is made in accordance with Section 81 and the allottees are independent persons rather than benamidars of the majority, it is not oppressive, even if it dilutes minority holdings. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 )
9. What is the legal distinction between Section 397 and Section 398 of the Companies Act?
Section 397 deals with oppression of minority shareholders regardless of prejudice to the company, whereas Section 398 addresses conduct that is prejudicial to the interests of the company itself or mismanagement of its affairs. (Para 32 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. :- These fourteen appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Orissa raise common questions of law and fact and will be dealt with together. They are a consequence of a fight between two groups of business magnates for the control of Messrs. Kalinga Tubes Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company). They arise out of an application under Sections 397 , 398, 402 and 403 of the Indian Companies Act, No. 1 of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by the appellant in the High Court. Most of the facts are not seriously in dispute and it is necessary to set them out in detail in order to decide the main point raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that the affairs of the Company were being conducted in a manner oppressive to him and his group of members.
2. The Company was floated as a private limited company on December 1, 1950 with an authorised capital of Rs. 25 lacs. Originally, the shares were held by two groups of share-holders equally, except a few shares. These groups of share-holders may for our purposes be taken to be represented by Patnaik and Loganathan. The Company raised a sum of Rs. 36 lacs by the issue of two series of debentures which were guaranteed by the Government of Orissa between 1952 to 1954. In 1954, the appellant was approached by Dr. Mohanty, then Secretary to Government of Orissa (Industries Department) which was naturally interested in the Company having guaranteed debentures to the tune of Rs. 36 lacs, for helping the Company which was in financial and administrative difficulties. The appellant was requested to help the Company by providing finance and by arranging loans from banks and other sources and further by providing the necessary administrative guidance. The appellant agreed to do so and consequently on July 27, 1954, an agreement was entered into between the appellant, and Patnaik and Loganathan. To this agreement, the Company was not a party. We shall refer in detail to the various terms of the agreement later. In brief, however, the agreement provided that the appellant would be allotted shares in the Company equal to those held by Patnaik and Loganathan after increasing the share capital of the Company. Thus the Company would have three groups of share-holders represented by the appellant, Patnaik and Loganathan holding equal number of shares, besides a French company and one Rath, who between themselves held shares worth Rs. 4 lacs. These share-holders, however, were not party to the agreement. It was also provided that these three groups of share-holders would have equal number of representatives on the Board of Directors of the Company, namely, two each for the time being. The appellant also undertook to arrange for cash credit facilities to the limit of Rs. 50 locs on the security of raw materials and finished goods of the Company. And finally, the appellant Jain was to be the chairman of the Company. This agreement was followed by certain resolutions passed by the Company on August 16, 1954 by which some of the terms of the agreement were substantially carried out, the authorised capital was increased to rupees one crore (though it was issued later in instalments), and the appellant was made the chairman of the Company. It may, however, be noted that the resolutions did not refer to the agreement in terms and no change was made in the Articles of Association of the Company to bring them in conformity, with all the terms of the agreement. In January 1955, Narayanswami who had been appointed Managing Director resigned and Patnaik was appointed the Managing Director. In April 1955, the Company started production. Sometime thereafter the share capital was further subscribed up to Rs. 61 lacs and the three groups, namely, the appellant Jain, Patnaik and Loganathan held one-third of the shares leaving out shares held by the French company. Mr. Rath had sold his shares numbering 250 and these shares were equally divided between the three groups an
