Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

33. While neither any allegation about creation of a new majority nor any allegation about violation of fiduciary duties of directors is made in the petition, it is an admitted fact that with the issue and allotment of further shares a new majority has been created. It is a well accepted principle that in the proceedings under Section 397/398, it is always open to a court to give a general or other relief "as it deems just" to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided that granting of such a relief does not prejudice the other side. If anything is lacking in the petition, it may be made good by the subsequent affidavits and, therefore, it is necessary for us to consider the entire evidence that has been placed before us in order to do justice between the competing rights of the parties. The case of justice will not suffer if reliefs are granted after the consideration of all the evidence before us, even though the original plaint was lacking in particulars. In our view, the creation of a new majority without allowing the petitioners to participate in the further issue of equity is definitely an oppressive act, especially considering the circumstantial evidence which clearly points out that the factum of issue and allotment of such shares is not beyond doubt. Before we decide what reliefs can be given, we have to take into consideration that it is an admitted position that there were disputes between the petitioner and the respondents regarding the management and control of the company for the last few years. It is also on record that the respondents have filed complaints against the petitioner regarding theft of records of board minutes by the petitioner. These disputes continued even after reaching an out of court settlement dated September 24, 1991, filed before the Calcutta High Court in Suit No. 642 of 1991. However, disputes continued and efforts were made again to settle the disputes which culminated in the signing of the family settlement dated October 18, 1991, which is signed by petitioner No. 1 and respondents Nos. 2 and 7, according to which the petitioner was to have nothing to do with the Ringtong matters and in lieu of his shares he was to get other family property and cash. We have no doubt that considering the conflict between the two groups of shareholders, in our opinion, the company cannot function properly if these two warring groups continue to hold the shares and also share the management powers. The facts in this case also clearly point out that there is no chance of redressal of the grievances in the domestic forum of the company. While granting the reliefs under Section 397, the wide powers that are given to the Bench are to be exercised with the purpose of "bringing to an end the matters complained of". The respondents have laid a great stress on the factum of family settlement arrived at between the parties according to which the shares belonging to the petitioner were to be transferred to the other parties to the dispute. During the hearing, respondents Nos, 2 and 3 have categorically stated that if ordered, they are ready to buy the shares of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not willing to sell the shares and insisted on granting a relief for the cancellation and issue of allotment of 3,800 shares and calling a shareholders' meeting to elect a new board of directors to run the company. In our opinion, such a course of action would not result in putting an end to the dispute which cannot be settled in the domestic forum of the company and continuation of such a dispute will not be in the interests of the company and the shareholders in general. Therefore, the relief that can be granted, considering the objectives of Section 397, is for the shares of the oppressed to be bought by the oppressor. However, we find that a dispute relating to the family settlement dated October 18, 1991, which also deals with the transfer of the shares of the petitioner, in lieu of the other family properties, to the respondents in the present case, is pending before the Calcutta High Court and all the parties including Ringtong Company are parties to the dispute before the Calcutta High Court and the decision therein will bind all the parties. In view of these facts, we do not think that the circumstances warrant invoking the discretionary powers of this Bench in this matter and, therefore, the petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.