National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
M/S Ranchi Metal & Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Surjeet Singh on 20 February, 2017
fet
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Company Appeal {,
{arising out of Order dated 10% November 2015 passed by NCLT, Kolkata
Bench in C.A.No. 92/0-1/2016 in C.P.Na. GOIND)/ 2015}.
Ni/s Ranchi Metal & Ispat Pvt. Limited » Appelaets
¥s.
Surjeet Singh oo RESpoE BE
For Appellant oo: Ms. Marniulika Pal, 8/Shri Akhilesh Shrivastava and
Shakeel Ma. Akhter, Advocates
FurReapandent
vF.
ee
'ae
nee
ae
x3
behe
oy
te
ye
hea
epee,
at
yo
-
free th a vr £3:
Spots eet vs toys, aoe i rae ee paw wz pee ti oy, o ro = weed we Yan:
'edt a f en pages ee pee BA we $4 aed.
on os, eee s wet ete A. ss Mehra, / Advouates JURGMEN T JSS SS EES TEL ALO This appeal hes been preferred by the Appelants /Respondent SVAN SE Order dated LOS November 2016 passed by National Company Law THbunal, rot x & Kotkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal™) in CP. No. 14 of 2Qi4, whereby and whereunder the Tebunal while held oppression and mismanagement by the Appellants, set aside the sharcholding ae were made in favour of 4° appellant. The 1° appellant company has been directed to refund the amount to the 4° apnellant, g. The Company Petiter was fled by reapandent/ petitioner, Shri Surjeet yp Singh {hereinafter referred fo as Petitioner} under Section S97, 868 of the Camparies Act LOS before die then Company Law Board thereinatier Sed s.
yr eee RNER
8. TAS case Of thee respondents petidaner befare the Trihunal is as follows:
The respordent and the 2nd appellant were employees of ane M/s.
Ushe Martin Limited, dealing with mechanical mainiecnanc ciie. tr the was pramoter and subscriber of meme shares af M/s. Ranchi Metal & [spat F company), The comparry is the owner af in Jharkhand. Therefore, the respondent and the 2! « discussion with Mr NIK. Jain and other promoters of the company and agreed
i) purchase their shares. The share transaction was conchided and the respondent and the Snd appellant became sharcholders of the company. The respondent amd the 2nd appellant, o med ip atart a factury for metallurgical processes particularly in casting of pipes, ste.
4 In ortier to cammnence work on the land belonging te the campany and ioe:
Ps Let appellant compar. The same was shown as share apphcation money in the Annual Accounts for the financial year ering 318 March, 2013.
= bs ea " Ae st . Qs Byes ate RES Bkace "Bead os pcesent hea s Si Further, the case of respondent is thar along with the Bnd aposiant they purchased the shares of one Mr Prinee Goyal who was another share hoaicker of ihe campany.
bes AG & Sa ut Lf ae ; ' ¢ p -
fen 2s "s a Bis vg a wo fee a ae £ 'eet Fae Eee: : om 'at By pet pe tot lat bot ee t os bes beet be tF: ree a gg i en oP *y wn, s a heel 8 a "os doe wy hy te o, ter pe aed ' ye age oe o, "at xy tip 2 ' aS bee we bs ad , os 'of "at "ae ang oe rt rs ae Le z tees, ba ge ¥ os, oe oe Le my fe eet a 2 wees tn CE es Ba me 4 4g ot & bow, bed oo Sos eed Hen ee Fae ay we Be oy fa onens 9 bet eA 4 ween, rine, fae oer "en ae as ae wen net? St o "beet a4 hak, A vn th , oan ae oe fae ~~ "
os hb Kas " fae Ea ba 4 oe te oe ies fi % viet Nae ye rok me a ro ° ; ot gad oo if 4 "oe oe ata y wand st fit * oft a 7 a "ae fe, &y Bene te ft, cs ne ae a ea "
we - ga Si Mit ee be So s ae % " fea A om Ea a on % the z jon hd we a ren oe ; end, at s bey a. ars ves et 7 ine - , od "
we ee ta e a a oon oe as ws "
gen gen. hee ne £6, ares "se ee, ¥ . be pee as Pas eo GS oe wee ae weed ps4 hee ee oe a % ve a oe oe B ea a ee =p is oe 4 : x 23 Be e on Ps - ton "4 e, af we o4. Che fs en oat tock £% et geet oer4 va a Paci yr 5 a ca we apne Wh toe bee ay a? vn wt? wf ber whe, Se beet aed pre ann oe bes bes Ae wre BS a & : oe 2 om Pn, ve pat et ee tad Sew oe : oe ees m2 o Bo LE a ee OB oh i me OO £3 Par ' nee aed, go "ee 'a eee ' ae "
"wt tae hoe ng thet. < ia os $s ote go o, Faget 'A er i fo > toe wes wet "4 fo ya ey 4 as pe "ee oe Eat om és o ~ ' ne is oe and we , 7 ¥ EE oes uy : fe, gz wea nn 'so # ant Ge at tent Th, G " get @ re wg 2 : (be be 4 get we ey we " Saree 2S om nent ' "ed oe ened e Ma x be ae s oe we ; "net Ae pas ae Pe rs ' 76 Soe ge ye ae io io eos 4 Sods, dee ae ' ie beg cma ie ws ae peer tet "here a ve ad : oe we Tae £5 . My % aA aa ok Ee + oo a Nag rt ae #3 set end, feeb é "apt tema, yark "fe oo aod, eet fee tA & ay tte sheet ae + " end, oe Hed, shor eet oe ee ee es cos SA vey ae yw, v a a aye . oe eet a3 ban "ha aot % cra 'emo . " pet Ses ay Ze : $ , sedi ge Erg a ot yee ; Be eet a we me ne ving ot beth, boa BS Bx ve r% Sd : 4 a : * 3 fee, Sep 4s we, ee oes Lg "hak ws "es ge, age a be eee, wee te 'at "nd wee FS cee a pokey ay wee i oe Sot tm eS fat ty ne eke ree : "wa welt a a te ts 'nt oft owe op * a3 a ct oe 0, es on, nei Ze te oy af se os ta So 43 aha %, i fen beat , tai nae a Tat oe 'say ae we a ret Pe ag ve ae oy, wt Seg ood te a on che? cat ay L ened, ot a 4 £05 ont coe zo pee . Loe Aft 7 z oe sped were on nA 5 Pr wore % tie ' 2g LA Ai Ly pin, ia os a sae ' An eo a 'a i oT} a we 'ae oe wees i ; pet a bot eee g xy foal Lat ae gS i Be "F ind $08, pees > af topes oped sie ne a rien oo. he 4 a eae wrer ae ref ; 4a "se ° st "ae we ben oe er ny ae 5 5 go Seal * * tee, rs pane wee . i M4 pre, ' Za er a ns 5 ££ 8 & a & Be We 43 ee a bes, £3 ved ae s bes 4a we "ad pei Moe ne 'aot ot pe 74 en es oe ene gu bu 'he ved oe oat Hood, Sb Teel! pat Sees 'ee 24 ners fee tos ape ~~ CS ve ms We wend os Kn oe 'See "ea tet w ex ner Ks yee odes we i fey tad mie ne wet. op he a ee Le ae we 3 ee ay aaa od a , oe Seed Pads wg. 4, ge Sune we hs ahd % rn pt aM pone 23g re we ag hes * seed: ee ie a, a Nae senen Pag ated: ree Se os oe re ae ao hee oo open arma pee! oe a 3 te la $ * Si EA Bed fee ", " Shae! aeons "he. tk we oe ie a ¢ heer af os as Be Ly, pe, pled eo Me oo tes ae Pia nots an
e) pe ie iz] oa eae ae oo eB bet saat ay" ae Tt Sin we £4 oe ; a ane rae. i. at pa ° 5 'ne vn be ve ey eo pee eG a are toh Re hed, ee, ee ted te teal et Se Stevi res ge atte, nee. 'an pews apee 'nat rd oo : we fs the, g Cail! geet rt eet fawe é ingens ye weed, pe ae owe te, ' Ls bs pee at cane bn, ~ cages Fad ev * 4 oo Pee Pa aA ae wt rae Su "ah ewe pee ; $ $M re, pe * ae wed eee Pt 2% Sone Sot we a te % weet ee, ot wert, wg oF we ee ae oe ts ue fea we , on inet 'lng taf re, ep ae wees sen wee wd es jee a, bee by "bot os LE Be as me we os, od on gS re sy bev gs ~ ces pe As % a ge ra fs 'nad re oe koe we 3 % box gee Lhe ce aa es 2 re fe ee aries ha BE a boa fn we x oe bee x a Bs ws oo we oe as ty fag % 4 oad te rhe fet ae a i wa pee o uy Ps 'sd oat on ; nes % m yee pga 'a ws het SB het £2, "% rs gon wt P at ee aed re sted ae oe an gE me Spee wes ts ae es bon, oe Ss nen, ny AS wD Ct a a whieh ne ry bee, £3 Ae a ms Se ue Ge Ye ae hed igh " ye ood 4 ae a "Eo, "eet eo go ae eo on he 4 "ha acon "83 Me ba "eee hog ee vn hot hes a ea. x ae 7 3 a] bed i es a3 ee « , be bE ges ot a yo ob ps thee ee et on £3 " -
es en, A weet ye sev oy : . weeds oy, Le nes on Be Bk ant ee Et a roe . ip gee oe oh 'ot ; oe £ a me 4 m web he Sane yee ty ; Ease ' oe * Ke Be aid we tn we peed ne < ¥% eA wer we ge yf oe s eS % ee mS m8 te a % oe sy eet ins $56, eed 43 BG 1 af Peay ot hes GP "ee os ee a fd a ie ns bes a wg 2 poe ead apes Sect en, aa "yee * os fees nt bod * pe ~ 2 os St 4 om he heat ro fee Baa ah Indy nd 4, f% "A oe Sent a if ars ed te ss, gt rs bobK ae ca we ape rs pot eo > 2 2 % Ss fo : at hy i oe a a g hr nap 2 eget Hon s Bwer Pelbaynal arawe "the respondent before tee Tribunal was y, 2014 and the Extraordinary General Meetiras belel an 4th February, 2015, hie sharshaiding has been brought down from: SOS) ir » Howes so brought dawn by allotting shares in favour of the 4% appellant. The grievance of the respondent was that the aforesaid meeting ws oN notice and his knowlerigs a The regnardent, thereby, sought a declaration that the Batracre nary General Meeting held on 4° Pebruary, 2014 was Glesal, mull arc void and mynciion was also sought fpr to direct the Registrar of Companies, fo trest E-form Nos. 2 and § fled pursuant to egal meetings held on 14 February, 2019 and 18 February 2014 as nor-est, egal and invalid.
£ Nivs Prowees ae we nt :
tk. Phe case of the appellanta is that the 4° gppelias Infermational Pye. Led, paid Rs.2.01,00,000/~ fRanees two crores one lakh only) for Che market value of the industrial land owned by the lst appellant company and cantralied by the prameters, Mr Prince Goval and Mr MLK. Jain.
The documentary proofs were placed that Ist payment of Re. 11.00.0000) "a od a we oft made an S.S.2012, Snd payment of Rg. S0,00,000/- was made on 215.2019 wt yee oe we ee 3 ft & ten te aA pee.
pet a 33 ee ated "
¥ wer Ee ty we we.
ot Ps jokes ard 3° and && paymerrts Re. i5,00.000/- and Rs. 25,.00,000/> respectively. Two othe oe % wt "3 x See 'nat we % e se we or wh ot a % 4 & eS rrrate an POLY 2 oo mt for, me ae we oe £% fe oe 'nee.
nt et a ze ~ o yee.
iw 'eee pee iQ. Purther case of the appeliants is that at ne point < At attendance sheel were maintained, ae the 1S appellant cammany is subsidiary company of the 46 respondent in passession of the piece of mehustrial lars] without cormrencement of ary business. For that matter meetings of appeliant's comftention, they pleaded that the Board meeting held on SO.S.2018 aa clanmed by the respondent was informal ard no notice were issued either by the appellants to the respondent or by respondent to the s poet
4. 'Phe case of the appellantis} before the Tribunal was thaton 18 February trie?
TS all three directors of the of appellant 20 appellant and O° appellant were made directors ef the ocmpany by original promiaters Mr. Prince Ges thea favour on 28° February, 2013 Le., one day aller their appointment as chreofars of the company. The poyrnes crores one lakh only) as aheare money was made by the 4 appellant in favour af the c we yon ne net ned:
oe oe, ae yee bade yee hy :
& we IS. Further case af the appellantis}) was that even mo forme held for comverting the share money and application af @' appellant ite loan. No auch decision could have beem taken alone the respandent without the consent af the S° appellant who was alse the iS "Phe appellants siso deried that the ad arrangement fa acquire shares of the company in Ais in ;
:
:3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ;3
3 3 3 3 3 & that cauld have been ox ghem were in the Boarc "y x iY. Befere the Appellate Tribunal the parties have taken similar plea as were falben before the Frebunal. iS The Tribunal by impurned pet uary, 2OTS, the Roars of Directars of the ce ta ceHpeene fe ped iret took ve oF Extraordinary Gonenil Mocting for increasing the share capital. [valso motioned x the allegation made by respondent that the Extraardinary General Meeting was hela on [sh February, 2074 increasing authorised share napital to Rs.S erare and the purported? Board's meeting held on IS Pshruary, 20d4, ws allotting shares in favour of the S° and 4% anoellants, Having noticed the os aiied fo fils any evidence to show same, the Tribunal that matines were given fo tie respandent before increasing the authorised share capital and allotment of shares in favour of 4 somellant and thereby educed the sharcholdir to G24 86. Sn wipw of the respondent from ere Raa geb a Fa rn "geet eens, al set asicle the allotment of shares as was mace ini amt iy resafution dated TS February, 2OQIS. The company have beer directed to refund the amount to the $@ anoecilant, 1&. The aprsetants have also raised' the question of maintainability of the Company Petition at the iretance of the respondent as his sharecholling was O24 % of total shareholding of the company on the date of presentation of the Company Petition, [1 was contender! that the petition under Seotian SOY and S88 of the Companies Aot, PONG was not maintainable im wiew of tie faot that end the reaporments do not satieiy the requirement of Section O94 of the Coamparies Act, 20138.
20. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties ard perused the record.
2. In Amap Rumar Aggarwal Vs. Crystal Thermotech Lid. & Ors. ~-
Company AppeallAT] No. TY of SOG) this Court considered the crucial date when an applicant is required to satiaiy the requirements under Section Sti of the Companies Act, 2012 so as te make the requirement of hawng an agpregate af 1/1G of share out of the total shareholding of the company, if the appellant alleges oppression in bringing down his shareholding. In the ward case, this Court noticed the Hon'ble Sigoreme Court's decision in "Bhagwati Gevelopers Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Blectric Supply Corporation Ltd," wherein the Apex Court held that the requirement of 1/105 of holding of the totel share is to be examined ia the Nght of whether such a number is maintained on the actual date of presentation of the company petition in the court (erphasis added}. This Court while distinguished the decision af Nene Supreme Ceurt in "Bhagwati Dewelopers Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Blectric Supply Corporation Lid," held that the said orinciple, which was made applicable in the case of winding up, will not be applicable where apniicant alleges oporession ard mismanagement in bringing down the shareholding below 1/10 of the total share ef the company. This Court further observes skye OF that or.
ew ved, on ' ae Sy, e teen Set re ae "h oA x % ned ee micipies lal dawn by Supreme Court in "Bhagwati Developers Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.,* corks eeks eye 2 oy Fer peesyebos aes woxtyies dey ¥3e5 ese 2S a Moyer which related to cages of winding up, is made applicable in the case of alleged s y z > FY as freartent en aed y RAW UIT PEL pondent foetiborier rey FEN wt he ye Re 7} fo The momar fener t tt ma REAM HULL, akh on ay Eteny ores oy bh RESES IS < Ole.
ainat
-
urmar A ate of & Te SHORS, a & sree 3 pany Pet rw x ged "Arup & alle ath the "Veh AY i e 2 ni the applics OX bey > z ms < $ , the os
2) ~ =
3. ef THHS x % my amd its ye Ag iN }
3. < S33 S SN * it hates the crucial ck Pace.
an WL be ed by reapondent was m SHEER ary o } Share ny the ce x S29 we SOTEp > 4 ay a ' ay re ge Be as ye atrre roee ys = ten eet idee z we ee : % Soca we Segre, eb, ved tot Nas a oe wom, < ee, a feat ped i wg wy "; " te roe j iy eer ee per ten. ot F oced we KE tins, = Ben, Ry MES pitts, et er ae wd wt vn ie, Ly oy oS nat 'engl atl £4 om o end Soe vt wy Ge ny a wee bree ty ingetl rs a rh ed ene, dt ys bea "naa te a oa * weed rah fae a oe i tapes get '. we % eg we £3 wap "nape we @ * * * an ma : pad wened, 'Se OM Sie a ae gee £5 et eed ft "A "ee - et Re "yt ~ ",° . eA & a ed ae :
: $ " z .
oe x By 23 es i, ay 7s vee eee eee ys a wt ae a ed ot ore, me tuk ' gd Fd get pect on " ire, a a4 a ek eT ed Py Sn, g we " Foe Ce a4 int : i we " : He ent Be uae ots; sent % ai ' S. _ as ra 24 4 ' yw hy 'Cineers hee hee d Sa 5 ee ah, oon po we oe £06 ge te Se Se oe ot 3 pe wed as oe w, vird, Spas ae 4 faa > ; o by 3 ; oy Bo we gt ae ase: a as sagt 4 t 4% ee j z we od SS oe he & @ yee 1, ae ad es et ieee yt ea oS ws i "en ae a os as tae. 4 ae ane * "8 « SOs get 43 gf he ya he t we weet i we oS ines Bd io @ "test ge Be ee hed 2% ravi 26 ae a, ated "Rael chen tg a weg "en foe 'nd "ea ee Bet 2 oe fon ee "gd Pe oe a 83 ooh Be we nee Ke ae xe £2 one "eh ona £3 he hes be tree a wee Bs 2 nee a, % 3 pot bs " ie, ree fds i, Gy Es >, laa id 4 we yee. vat ee " ree, ar San or, 8 re won wm Kal 4p , gy? ae ee Wn yh Ink ws cet x 3 peed, ed 2 eet te apne. . ae 'a t, Site. 5 a 3 4 'ot 4 any + es a feo eo wo oe, x abe Bp oe Saat ah : a5 aes ae ht Sat wit ft. mh a t a eee eepet per Sikh We ot Ay pe Ps whe ee wet a o ss & we wa oe bed tt he
- oF ened on, ng rd as ond, ws ih oe wets *,, fred we ont Je & a met a S "ie Sie ths gt , "anes a ee tg x ihe, Bes oe ee ed Bos, os ge "nen wy ini uk 'ye at Soe ton ee yooh <a ue Ue oe ee ey oe 4h Be ae $ C " 'as weed, . & Yi: cae on yet 4 we "i & a & te £4 he, pe aoe tee nots nw * a a3 ves pn, a % 5 'Aee what 4 egies wen Seen it pod ye oa "neil SA Me ". see ' wt ny ake a te 8 Z ZB Ww ¢ Cs -
* BS ope poe 4, y 5 get 3 t Z 'nf 'e ay : fet a gt Soe: f. Seat pod Pe Soe, Set we wees gs yee Be ad oe i ae ee ten a, tah ye %. wn, "hed so ah gon tft es oY, oe 'a ast ass o ee sneee heat tinal A phos yh, Soe ay woh re ae bw: wn PLS te pd oe ve Pk tani rs tn:
ae Kad Sons wg ws 4 'S had poke, pee % ~ & appeliay w sth :
© Suir io Ene 2 the loan or returned th & z iv} a 8 provided a suum af Rx. 2,01 00,000 /- the working of the campany. The Lo. Tribural has noticed we, Respondents, and ne The respendent hac knonwiedgs, NS THO Respomdont/ Petitioner had rechucesd. SS. For the reasons aforésaki, we impugned order dated 16° November sircurmatances af the case, we dire and the company to refund the Cme Lakh only} with 18% per anrurn os oe within one manth. The Registrar af the € 4
27. The order passed by Tribunal de ta the extent above, ea rrendified ¢ Qhserva lions.
The appeal (Rupees that » RQM heilcf to allot share and in s are mot Gechedd ta BOT, amet af Re.
omipanies WH ensur Beo cares on iach omhs ei fo shert ye previ Si favour of the 4 ¢ the result the ferios e with the Newever, im the fscts anc om the respondent and the ather directors 3,07 ,00,000/- is. Two Crare interest to i appellant e such payment.
vied Leb Nowermber 2OIS stands stands digpased of with aforesaid poet (Just dee SG Muk Ch airper TSN 3 WP hy yey SHAG aAya