Skip to main content

NCLT: Tribunal can only look into oppression and not the legality/validity of the removal of a director

Citation : Thaniyulla Parambath Jahafar vs Relax Zone Tourism Private Limited, CP/24/KOB/2021

Date of Judgment/Order : 17th January, 2022

Court/Tribunal : The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench

Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial) & Hon’ble Mr. Shyam Babu Gautam, Member (Technical)

Background

The Petitioner is one of the directors of the Respondent No. 1 which was originally formed by 5 friends and basic features of the Respondent Company was that all the shareholders had equal shareholding and all the shareholders were participating in Management as directors.

The Petitioner was removed from the board as a director through an EGM and resolution which was passed by majority.

Petition was filed under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act 2013, against the removal claiming the removal to be be oppressive and prejudicial to the interests of the company.

Judgment

The NCLT while holding the removal of the Petitioner not an oppressive act, reiterated  the judgment of the Supreme Court in TATA Consultancy Services Limited Vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 440-441 of 2020), wherein interalia it has been observed that :-

1) An important aspect to be noticed is that in a petition under Section 241, the Tribunal cannot ask the question whether the removal of a Director was legally valid and/or justified or not. The question to be asked is whether such a removal tantamount to a conduct oppressive or prejudicial to some members. Even in cases where the Tribunal finds that the removal of a Director was not in accordance with law or was not justified on facts, the Tribunal cannot grant a relief under Section 242 unless the removal was oppressive or prejudicial.

2) There may be cases where the removal of a Director might have been carried out perfectly in accordance with law and yet may be part of a larger design to oppress or prejudice the interests of some members. It is only in such cases that theTribunal can grant a relief under Section 242.

3) A company, however small, however domestic, is a company and not a partnership or even a quasi-partnership.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more