Case Law
Subject : Legal - Corporate Law
Indore, India
– In a recent order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Court No. 1, a dispute between
The case, CP/9(MP)2021, was filed by
The Petitioners contended that they had invested ₹37,75,450 as share application money between 2007 and 2014 with the understanding that they would be allotted a majority stake (approximately 61.34%) in
The Respondents, on the other hand, contested the Petitioners' claims, arguing that they did not meet the minimum shareholding requirement to file the petition under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013. They further justified the conversion of share application money into an unsecured loan, citing the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, which stipulate a 60-day limit for share allotment from the receipt of application money. They argued that the conversion was a necessary legal compliance due to this time limit.
Interestingly, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 partially supported the Petitioners, admitting that the investment was intended as share application money for equity shares and expressing unawareness of the loan conversion. They even alleged manipulation and forgery if board resolutions for such conversion were presented.
The NCLT bench carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented. The tribunal highlighted that while the Respondents claimed the conversion was due to the 60-day rule in the Companies Act, 2013 [Section 42(6)], they failed to either allot the shares within 60 days or refund the application money within 15 days as mandated by the same section. The tribunal noted:
> "However, we note that the Respondent No. 3 & 4 supports the averments raised by the petitioners that they were approached by the respondent to invest in the company for the purpose of liasoning with IDA for getting approvals, allotment and possession etc of the educational plot of IDA and the amount invested by the petitioners were termed as share application money against which equity shares of the respondent No.1 company was to be allotted to the petitioners in proportion to their investment."
and
> "We further note that though the conversion of share application money into unsecured loan was shown in the audited financial statement for the financial year 2013-14, however, the same were filed in the year 2017 and the same is not denied by the respondent. Thus the limitation period is to be reckoned from 2017 and the present application is filed in the year 2021. ... Thus the contention of the respondent that the present application is barred by limitation is misplaced."
Ultimately, the NCLT concluded that the company failed to comply with the provisions of Section 42(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. Consequently, the tribunal directed
Furthermore, the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Gwalior, was directed to investigate the compliances made by the respondent company and take necessary penal actions for any breaches of the Companies Act, 2013.
This order underscores the importance of adhering to the timelines stipulated under the Companies Act, 2013, regarding share allotment against application money. It also highlights the NCLT's willingness to intervene in cases of mismanagement and ensure that shareholder investments are protected, either through share allotment or timely refunds with appropriate interest. The case serves as a reminder for companies to maintain transparency and compliance in handling share application money and shareholder rights.
The petition was partly allowed and disposed of, offering a significant relief to the Petitioners while holding
#CompanyLaw #NCLT #ShareholderRights #NationalCompanyLawTribunal
Madras High Court Stays Case Against BJP Leader Annamalai
21 Apr 2026
Delhi HC Convicts Hockey India of Court Contempt
21 Apr 2026
Centre Defends 4PM YouTube Block in Delhi High Court
21 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Allows Chhattisgarh Employee LLB Third-Year Exams
21 Apr 2026
Show Cause Notice Must Strictly Align with Cancellation Order: Supreme Court Permits Fresh Action in Liquor License Case
21 Apr 2026
No Pension If Mandatory Option Not Exercised Under 1984 Model Rules Adopted by Municipality: Calcutta HC
21 Apr 2026
SDO Lacks Jurisdiction to Reclassify Public Utility Land under Section 132 UPZA&LR Act: Supreme Court
22 Apr 2026
Subsisting Contracts Don't Bar Fresh Tender for Future Period: Delhi High Court
22 Apr 2026
Delhi High Court Justice Karia Recuses from Kejriwal Contempt PIL
22 Apr 2026
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.