Skip to content
The Law Easy

Corporate Law: Complete Notes

Corporate Law (Company Law) studies the company from beginning to end: from what a company is and how it is born, to how it finally comes to an end. The course has six units; the first deals with the introduction to company law and the incorporation of a company.

136 min read Published

Cover: Corporate Law: Complete Notes
On this page

About this subject

Corporate Law (Company Law) studies the company from beginning to end: from what a company is and how it is born, to how it finally comes to an end. The course has six units; the first deals with the introduction to company law and the incorporation of a company.

Phones and most other everyday goods are made by companies. Connecting every rule to real companies is the easiest way to remember it.

Key point

For every important case, learn the facts, the question before the court, the decision and the principle. Remember the principle most of all: it is what is applied in examinations and in practice.

Why the Company Exists

Example

Prince wants to build a steel plant costing Rs. 500 crore, which he does not have. Even if he found the money, he would fear that if the plant fails he will lose his house, his savings and everything he owns. The company answers both problems.

  • Pooling of capital: thousands of people can join small amounts of money into one large business.
  • Limited risk: each of them risks only the money he has put in.

That is why the company has become the main vehicle of modern business. But large companies also employ lakhs of people and affect whole communities, so the law does two things at once:

  1. it gives the company freedom to raise money and do business; and
  2. it controls the company, so that those who run it do not misuse the money of shareholders, creditors, workers and the public.
Key point

Almost every rule of company law either gives freedom or puts a control.

Growth of Company Law in India

YearDevelopment
1600The East India Company received its charter from Queen Elizabeth I. Early companies were created by a special grant of the Crown, not under a general law.
1850Joint Stock Companies Act, India's first general company law, modelled on an English Act of 1844. It allowed registration but gave members no limited liability.
1857An Act introduced limited liability.
1866Companies Act, based on the English Companies Act of 1862.
1882, 1913Indian Companies Act of 1882, replaced by the Indian Companies Act of 1913.
1956On the report of a committee headed by C.H. Bhabha, Parliament passed the Companies Act, 1956, in force from 1 April 1956. It remained the law for almost sixty years.
2005The economy having changed completely, an expert committee headed by Dr. J.J. Irani reviewed the law and reported.
2013Companies Act, 2013: President's assent on 29 August 2013; most sections in force from 1 April 2014.
2016NCLT and NCLAT set up on 1 June 2016, taking over the work of the old Company Law Board and most company matters of the High Courts. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 took over corporate insolvency.
2015, 2017, 2019, 2020Notable amendments. The 2020 amendment converted many minor offences into civil penalties.

The Companies Act, 2013, with the Rules made under it, is the law in force.

Meaning of a Company

Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013 defines a company as a company incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law. This does not say what a company is; it only says that a company is created by law, through registration.

Key point

A company is an association of persons who contribute money to a common business, and whom the law turns into one separate person with a name of its own.

Chief Justice Marshall of the American Supreme Court described a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law". A company cannot be seen or touched, but the law treats it as a person.

Characteristics of a Company

  1. Separate legal personality (the most important). Under Section 9, from the date of incorporation mentioned in the certificate, the subscribers and all future members become a body corporate by the name in the memorandum, with perpetual succession and power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to contract, and to sue and be sued in its own name.
  2. Limited liability. In most companies a member's liability is limited to the amount unpaid on his shares.
  3. Perpetual succession. Members may die, become insolvent or sell their shares, but the company continues. Even if every shareholder dies in one accident, the company does not die; the shares simply pass to their heirs. A company ends only when the law ends it, for example by winding up or striking off.
  4. Transferability of shares. Under Section 44, a member's shares are movable property, transferable in the manner provided by the articles. A shareholder of a public company can usually sell and leave without disturbing the company; a private company must restrict this right.
  5. Separate property. The company's property belongs to the company, not to its members. Even a person holding almost all the shares does not own its land or machines.
  6. Capacity to sue and be sued in its own name.
  7. Separation of ownership and management. Shareholders own the company through their shares, but it is managed by a Board of Directors whom they elect. This is useful but is also the source of many problems.
  8. Common seal. Optional since an amendment in 2015. Where a company has no seal, documents that needed it are signed by two directors, or by a director and the company secretary.

Advantages and Disadvantages of a Company

Advantages

  • Limited liability, perpetual succession and transferable shares attract investors.
  • A public company can raise very large capital from the public through shares and debentures.
  • It can be managed by professionals who own no shares at all.
  • It can borrow on the security of its assets, including a floating charge over its changing stock of goods.

Disadvantages

  • Formation and running involve many formalities and costs.
  • Important documents are open to the public, so there is less secrecy.
  • Those in control may misuse the money of others, which is why the law imposes so many duties on them.
  • The privilege of separate personality can be taken away when misused.

Company and Partnership Compared

PointCompanyPartnership firm
Legal statusA separate legal person.Under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, only a collective name for the partners.
LiabilityMembers of a limited company have limited liability.Partners are personally liable without limit for the firm's debts.
TransferShares can be transferred.No outsider can be brought in without the consent of all partners.
SuccessionPerpetual succession.Dissolved by the death of a partner, unless the partners have agreed otherwise.
ManagementManaged by its Board.Every partner is an agent of the firm.
SizeCan be very large; a public company has no upper limit on its members.Under Section 464 of the Companies Act and its Rules, an association of more than 50 persons cannot be formed to carry on business for profit; it must be registered as a company or formed under some other law.

Between the two stands the limited liability partnership, created by a separate Act of 2008: a separate legal person like a company, but run internally like a partnership.

Case

Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd.: Aron Salomon, a London leather merchant and boot maker, converted his sole business into a company. As the law required seven members, the members were Salomon, his wife, daughter and four sons. The company bought his business for about 39,000 pounds, paying him partly in shares (he held 20,001 of the 20,007 shares issued; each family member held one). It also gave him debentures (written acknowledgements of a loan) worth 10,000 pounds, secured by a charge on all its assets. The business soon ran into trouble and the company went into liquidation; its assets could not pay even the debentures in full, so if Salomon, as secured debenture holder, was paid first, the unsecured creditors would get nothing. The liquidator argued that the company was a sham, only Salomon under another name, so Salomon should pay its debts; the trial judge and Court of Appeal treated it as merely his agent or trustee. Held: The House of Lords unanimously reversed. The company was validly formed: the Act required seven members holding at least one share each, not that they be independent of one another. Per Lord Macnaghten, the company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers; even with the same business, managers and recipients of profits, it is not their agent or trustee. Salomon was not liable for its debts and, as secured creditor, was paid before the unsecured creditors. Principle: A registered company is a separate legal person from its members, even when one person holds almost all its shares.

The court applied this even though the unsecured creditors lost their money, because they had chosen to deal with a limited company and could have protected themselves.

Key point

Salomon is the foundation of modern company law. Cite it in every answer on corporate personality.

Consequences

  • The company owns its property and owes its debts.
  • A member can contract with his own company, lend it money, or even be its employee.
  • A creditor of the company must normally sue the company, not its members.
Example

Prince holds 99 per cent of the shares of a private company that buys goods from Farhan on credit and fails to pay. Farhan must sue the company. He cannot seize Prince's house, because Prince and the company are two different persons.

The principle can work against the shareholder

Case

Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd.: Macaura sold all the timber on his estate in Northern Ireland to a company, receiving almost all its shares; he was also a large unsecured creditor of the company. He insured the timber against fire in his own name, not the company's, and a fire destroyed almost all of it. Question: did he have an insurable interest in the timber? Held: The House of Lords held that he did not. The timber belonged to the company. A shareholder, even of almost all the shares, has no legal or equitable interest in any particular property of the company, and an unsecured creditor has no interest in any particular asset. His claim failed. Principle: The property of the company is not the property of its shareholders.

Example

If Prince owns all the shares of a company that owns a truck, the truck must be insured in the name of the company.

Application in India

Case

Dhulia Amalner Motor Transport Ltd. v. Raychand Rupsi Dharamsi: Bus owners running buses as a partnership had the business converted, by a majority of partners, into a private limited company. Minority partners sued, claiming the company was the old partnership under a new name, and sought accounts and a share of profits. Held: The Bombay High Court, relying expressly on Salomon, held that the company's entity was entirely different from that of its shareholders and of the old partnership. The buses and business belonged to the company, so the former partners could not claim accounts as if it were still their firm. Principle: Once a business is converted into a company, the company is a new person and the assets belong to it alone.

Limited Liability

Limited liability is closely linked to separate personality.

Key point

It is the member, not the company, who has limited liability. The company must pay all its debts, as far as its assets go. What is limited is the amount a member can be asked to contribute.

  • Company limited by shares: liability limited to the amount, if any, unpaid on the member's shares.
  • Company limited by guarantee: each member promises to contribute up to a fixed amount if the company is wound up.
  • Unlimited company: no limit on members' liability, but it can be enforced only in a winding up.
Example

Zoya buys 1,000 shares of Rs. 10 each and has paid Rs. 6 per share. The most she can ever be asked to pay is the remaining Rs. 4,000. If her shares are fully paid, she owes nothing more, however large the company's debts.

Limited liability shifts risk to the creditors. That is why the law demands public disclosure, protects the company's capital, and sometimes lifts the veil.

Lifting the Corporate Veil

Separate personality is a privilege given by law. Where it is used as a mask to cheat creditors, escape a legal duty or evade tax, the law may look behind the company at the persons who really control it. This is lifting, or piercing, the corporate veil. The company is like a curtain between the world and its members: normally the court does not look behind it, but when it is used for fraud or to defeat the law, the court lifts it, either under the statute or through judicial decisions.

Statutory instances

  • Section 3A: if membership falls below the legal minimum (seven for a public company, two for a private company) and the company carries on business for more than six months while so reduced, every member who knows of this becomes severally liable for debts contracted after those six months.
  • Section 7(7): if a company was incorporated by false information or fraud, the Tribunal may even direct that its members' liability shall be unlimited.
  • Sections 34 and 35: directors, promoters and experts may be personally liable for untrue statements in a prospectus.
  • Section 339: if in a winding up the business appears to have been carried on to defraud creditors, the Tribunal may make the persons knowingly responsible personally liable without any limit.

Judicial instances

The courts have never made a closed list, but the cases fall into familiar groups.

1. Enemy character

Case

Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd.: During the First World War, Continental Tyre, registered in England, sued Daimler for a debt for goods supplied. All its shares but one were held by Germans in Germany and its directors were German; only the secretary, holding one share, lived in England. Daimler argued that paying would be trading with the enemy. Held: The House of Lords held that an English-registered company may acquire an enemy character if the persons in real control of its affairs are enemies, and dismissed the action as started without proper authority. Principle: In time of war, the court may look behind a company to see who really controls it.

2. Fraud, or escaping a legal obligation

Case

Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. v. Horne: Horne, a former managing director of Gilford Motor Company, had promised in his service agreement not to solicit its customers after leaving. He formed a new company, with his wife and one other person as the only shareholders and directors, and solicited the customers through it, arguing that the company, not he, was doing so. Held: The Court of Appeal held the new company a mere cloak or sham formed to escape his promise, and granted an injunction against both Horne and the company. Principle: A person cannot use a company to do what he himself has promised not to do.

Case

Jones v. Lipman: Lipman agreed to sell a property to Jones, changed his mind, acquired a company and transferred the property to it. Sued for specific performance, he said he no longer owned it. Held: Specific performance was ordered against both Lipman and the company, which the court called a device and a sham, a mask which Lipman held before his face to avoid recognition by the eye of equity. Principle: A company used to evade an existing legal obligation will be ignored.

Key point

Learn Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman as a pair.

3. Evasion of tax

Case

In re Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Petit: Sir Dinshaw, a wealthy man of Bombay, paid super tax on a large income from interest and dividends. In 1921 he formed four private companies and agreed to sell his investments to them, but the investments stayed in his or his nominees' names and he kept receiving and using the income, shown in the accounts as loans from the companies. Held: The Bombay High Court held such a company to be nothing more than the assessee himself; it did no business and was formed purely to avoid super tax. The loans were not genuine, and the income was taxed as his. Principle: The court will ignore a company that is a mere device to evade tax.

4. Use of a company to defraud people

Case

Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.: In 1980, Skipper Construction made the highest bid for a valuable plot auctioned by the Authority, paid a quarter of the price and defaulted on the rest, yet kept selling space in a proposed building on it and collecting large sums from the public, even after the Supreme Court restrained it. The man behind it, Tejwant Singh, and his family held properties through several other companies. Held: The Supreme Court (Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy) said the corporate entity was evolved to promote trade and commerce, not to commit illegalities or defraud people; where it is so used, the court will look at the reality behind the veil. All the companies were treated as one entity of Tejwant Singh and his family, and their properties kept under attachment so the people cheated could be repaid. Principle: The veil will be lifted where a company is used as a cloak for fraud.

5. Groups of companies and the purpose of a statute

When a parent works through a wholly owned subsidiary, the question is whether the law should treat them as one.

Case

Merchandise Transport Ltd. v. British Transport Commission: A furniture manufacturer carried its own goods in its own vans under a licence limited to its own goods; its wholly owned subsidiary held a wider, harder-to-obtain licence to carry goods for the public. The licensing authority refused the group's application to move over one hundred of the manufacturer's vans onto the subsidiary's licence. Held: In the English Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Danckwerts explained that where the character of a company, or the nature of the persons controlling it, is a relevant feature, the court will go behind its mere status as a legal entity and consider who directs and controls its activities. Principle: When the purpose of a law requires it, the court may look at who really stands behind a company.

Case

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Renusagar Power Co.: Hindalco, an aluminium company, set up a wholly owned subsidiary, Renusagar, to build and run a power station for its plant in Uttar Pradesh. The State electricity duty law favoured electricity consumed from a person's own source of generation; for long periods no duty was payable on it. Question: was Renusagar's station Hindalco's own source? Held: Yes. The Supreme Court (Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji) noted that Hindalco took every step to set up and expand the station, the expansion exactly matched its needs, and it controlled Renusagar completely; the veil was lifted and the two treated as one concern. The court observed that the veil of corporate personality, even though not lifted sometimes, is becoming more and more transparent in modern company jurisprudence. Principle: Where the realities show a subsidiary is only an arm of its parent, the court may treat them as one, especially to give effect to the purpose of a statute.

6. Defeating a welfare law

Case

The Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd.: The Bhavnagar company's dividends from shares in another company were counted in its profits for workers' bonus. It transferred those shares to a new wholly owned subsidiary with no other business or income; the dividends went to the subsidiary, the bonus surplus fell, and bonus dropped from 16 per cent to 4 per cent. The Industrial Tribunal and High Court treated the companies as separate. Held: The Supreme Court (Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy) reversed: the subsidiary was an obvious device to reduce the bonus, so the dividends had to be counted in the parent's profits. Principle: The court will lift the veil where a company is used to defeat a welfare law.

7. Recognising reality in favour of the person behind the company

Usually an outsider asks the court to lift the veil, but sometimes it is lifted in favour of the person behind the company.

Case

Prem Lata Bhatia v. Union of India: Her Government licence for a shop forbade her to let any other person use it or to take in a partner. She ran her travel business from the shop through a private company in which she and her husband held almost all the shares; the Government treated this as a breach and ordered eviction. Held: The Delhi High Court set aside the eviction, since the same person remained in possession though technically the company ran the business; it was lifting the veil merely to recognise the reality of the situation. Principle: The veil may be lifted not only to prevent a wrong, but also to see the truth of a transaction.

Limits on lifting the veil

Case

Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd.: Canteen workers at Air India's Delhi premises, engaged through the contractor Hotel Corporation of India (Air India's wholly owned subsidiary), claimed to be Air India's employees. Held: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Justice H.L. Dattu) rejected the claim. They were Air India's workers only for the limited purposes of the Factories Act, 1948, which requires such canteens; otherwise the Hotel Corporation was a separate legal entity. Approving the modern English view, the court held that ownership and control are not enough to pierce the veil: there must also be impropriety, that is, use of the company as a device or facade to conceal wrongdoing or evade an obligation. Principle: Separate personality is the rule; lifting the veil is an exception reserved for misuse.

Case

Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. G.C. Odusumath: The President of India held almost all the Corporation's shares. It argued that, being so deeply controlled by the Central Government, it was an industry carried on under that Government's authority, so only a Central Government labour court could hear its dismissed workmen's disputes. Held: The Karnataka High Court rejected this: the Corporation carries on business in its own right as a distinct legal person, however deep the Government's control. The veil is not lifted unless a statute clearly provides for it or there are compelling reasons, such as preventing fraud or trading with the enemy. Principle: Even a Government-owned company is a separate person from the Government.

Key point

Grounds for lifting the veil: (1) where the Act provides for it; (2) enemy character; (3) fraud or evasion of an existing obligation; (4) tax evasion; (5) a sham used to cheat people; (6) where the realities of a group and the purpose of a statute require it; (7) where a company is used to defeat a welfare law. Exam tip: begin with Salomon, explain that the veil is lifted only in exceptional cases, then give the ground with its leading case.

Incorporation of a Company

Under Section 3, a company may be formed for any lawful purpose by seven or more persons (public company), two or more (private company) or one person (One Person Company), who subscribe their names to a memorandum and complete the requirements of registration.

Procedure

The whole process is online, on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal.

  1. Reservation of name: the name must not be identical with, or too similar to, that of an existing company, and must not be undesirable.
  2. Preparation of the memorandum and articles.
  3. Filing under Section 7 with the Registrar of Companies, signed by all the subscribers, together with:
    • a declaration of compliance with all requirements of the Act, by an advocate, chartered accountant, cost accountant or company secretary in practice engaged in the formation, and by a director, manager or secretary named in the articles;
    • declarations by the subscribers and first directors that they have not been convicted of any offence connected with the promotion, formation or management of a company, and have not been found guilty of fraud or breach of duty towards any company in the preceding five years;
    • particulars of the subscribers and first directors, an address for correspondence, and the first directors' interests in other firms and companies.
  4. Certificate of incorporation: if satisfied, the Registrar registers the documents and issues the certificate, carrying a unique corporate identity number. The company is born on the date mentioned in it and, under Section 9, is from that date a body corporate with perpetual succession.

Effect of the certificate

Case

Moosa Goolam Ariff v. Ebrahim Goolam Ariff: A wealthy Rangoon merchant formed a company to hold his estate as one undivided mass for his junior wives and younger children. After his death, his eldest son claimed it was never validly incorporated, as conditions of registration such as seven subscribers were not met. Held: Lord Macnaghten, for the Privy Council, held the certificate of incorporation conclusive for all purposes. Principle: Once the certificate is granted, the court will not go behind it.

The 1956 Act said that the certificate was conclusive evidence that all registration requirements had been complied with. The 2013 Act does not repeat those words. Instead, Section 7(7) deals with a company incorporated by false information, suppression of material facts or fraud: the Tribunal may regulate its management, make its members' liability unlimited, remove its name from the register, order its winding up, or pass any other suitable order.

Commencement of business: Section 10A

A company having share capital cannot commence business or exercise borrowing powers until a director files a declaration, within 180 days of incorporation, that every subscriber has paid for the shares he agreed to take. The company must also have verified its registered office. If the declaration is not filed, the company and its officers face penalties, and if it seems to be doing no business, the Registrar may act to strike off its name.

Types of Companies

1. By liability of members

KindSectionLiability of members
Limited by shares2(22)Limited to the amount unpaid on his shares. The most common kind.
Limited by guarantee2(21)Members undertake to contribute up to a fixed amount if the company is wound up. Used by clubs, trade associations and charitable bodies; may or may not have share capital.
Unlimited2(92)No limit.

2. By number of members and access to the public

Private company: Section 2(68)

Its articles must:

  1. restrict the right to transfer its shares;
  2. limit its members to 200 (joint holders count as one; employee members, and former employees who became members while in service, are not counted); and
  3. prohibit any invitation to the public to subscribe for its securities.

Its name ends with "Private Limited". The old minimum paid-up capital (Rs. 1 lakh for a private and Rs. 5 lakh for a public company) was removed in 2015.

Public company: Section 2(71)

A company that is not a private company. It needs at least seven members and three directors, with no upper limit on members. A private company that is a subsidiary of a public company is treated as a public company, even if its own articles still describe it as private.

One Person Company: Section 2(62)

A new idea of the 2013 Act, allowing a single person to enjoy separate personality and limited liability.

  • Only a natural person who is an Indian citizen can form it; since 2021 he need not be resident in India.
  • The memorandum must name a nominee, who becomes the member if the sole member dies or becomes incapable.
  • A person cannot form more than one OPC.
  • It cannot carry on non-banking financial investment activities.

Small company: Section 2(85)

A private company whose paid-up capital does not exceed Rs. 10 crore and turnover does not exceed Rs. 100 crore. These limits were last raised in December 2025. A holding or subsidiary company, a Section 8 company and a company governed by a special Act cannot be a small company. Small companies enjoy lighter compliance, such as fewer Board meetings, simpler annual returns and lower penalties.

3. By control

Subsidiary and holding company, Section 2(87): a company is a subsidiary of another (its holding company) where that other company (i) controls the composition of its Board of Directors, or (ii) exercises or controls more than one half of its total voting power, alone or together with its own subsidiaries.

Associate company, Section 2(6): a company in which another company has significant influence, but which is not its subsidiary. Significant influence means control of at least 20 per cent of total voting power, or control of or participation in business decisions under an agreement. A joint venture company is also an associate.

4. Special kinds

Government company, Section 2(45): at least 51 per cent of its paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, one or more State Governments, or both together. Its subsidiary is also a government company.

Foreign company, Section 2(42): a company incorporated outside India that has a place of business in India, physically or electronically, and conducts any business activity here. Within 30 days of establishing a place of business in India, it must file its documents with the Registrar under Chapter XXII. If it fails to comply, Section 393 provides that its contracts remain valid and it can still be sued, but it cannot sue on them until it complies.

Case

Babulal Choukhani v. Caltex India Ltd.: A Calcutta landowner sued Caltex, incorporated in the Bahama Islands, for fees due under an agreement to lease his land for a petrol station. Held: The Calcutta High Court held that a foreign company is a body corporate that can be sued here, whether or not it has complied with the registration rules for foreign companies; Caltex carried on business in Calcutta through its district office, so the suit was maintainable, and part of the claim was decreed. Principle: A foreign company can be sued where it actually carries on business in India.

Case

Pratap Singh v. The Bank of America: Held: A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the American bank could be sued in that High Court, as it carried on business through its Bombay branch and had registered that branch as its principal place of business in India. Principle: A foreign company can be sued where it actually carries on business in India.

Listed company, Section 2(52): one whose securities are listed on a recognised stock exchange; the Rules exclude some companies, such as those that have listed only privately placed debt securities.

Section 8 company: formed to promote commerce, art, science, sports, education, research, social welfare, religion, charity, protection of the environment or similar objects. It must apply its income only to those objects, cannot pay dividends to members, and needs a licence from the Central Government.

Dormant company, Section 455: a company formed for a future project or to hold an asset, with no significant transactions, or an inactive company, may get dormant status from the Registrar.

Producer company: producer companies of farmers and other primary producers are now governed by Chapter XXIA.

Promoters

Every company begins as an idea; the person who turns that idea into a registered company is the promoter.

Case

Twycross v. Grant (1877): Chief Justice Cockburn gave the classic description: a promoter is one who undertakes to form a company with reference to a given project, and to set it going, and who takes the necessary steps to accomplish that purpose. Principle: The promoter conceives the business, finds the people and the money, and brings the company to life.

Definition: Section 2(69)

  1. A person named as a promoter in a prospectus, or identified as such by the company in its annual return.
  2. A person who has control over the affairs of the company, directly or indirectly, whether as a shareholder, director or otherwise.
  3. A person in accordance with whose advice, directions or instructions the Board is accustomed to act.
Key point

The third limb does not cover a person acting merely in a professional capacity. A lawyer or chartered accountant does not become a promoter merely because the Board acts on his professional advice.

A promoter is not an agent of the company, because it does not yet exist when he acts; nor is he a trustee in the strict sense. But he stands in a fiduciary position, a position of trust and good faith, towards the company he forms.

Case

Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co.: A syndicate headed by Erlanger bought the lease of an island with phosphate deposits and sold it, through a nominee, to a company it had itself formed, at double the price. The board approving the purchase was not independent and the shareholders were not told the truth. Held: The House of Lords allowed the company to rescind the purchase. Principle: A promoter must act in good faith, make no secret profit, and fully disclose any personal interest in a deal with the company.

Disclosure and secret profit

Disclosure must be made to an independent board of directors, to the members as a whole, or to the public in the prospectus. If it is not, the company may rescind the contract, or keep the property and recover the secret profit. A promoter may make an honest profit if he discloses it properly.

Example

While forming a company, Prince buys a factory building for Rs. 1 crore and secretly sells it to the company for Rs. 1 crore 40 lakh. The company can cancel the purchase, or keep the building and recover his profit of Rs. 40 lakh.

Rights

  • No automatic right to payment for his work, or even to recover preliminary expenses, because the company did not exist when he spent the money. In practice the articles or a post-incorporation contract provide for his remuneration and expenses, and the company pays them.
  • Where several promoters are jointly liable and one pays more than his share, he may claim contribution from the others.

Liabilities

  1. To account for any secret profit.
  2. Criminal and civil liability for untrue statements in a prospectus under Sections 34 and 35.
  3. In a winding up, Section 340 covers any person who took part in the promotion or formation of the company; if he has misapplied its money or property, or committed misfeasance or breach of trust, the Tribunal may order repayment with interest or compensation.
  4. Personal liability on contracts made before the company was born.

Pre-incorporation Contracts

Promoters often make contracts for a company before it is born, such as buying land or ordering goods.

Case

Kelner v. Baxter: Kelner agreed to sell wine to Baxter and two others, who signed on behalf of a proposed hotel company not yet formed. The wine was delivered and consumed, and the company, formed later, failed before paying. Held: Baxter and the others were personally liable. The company could not be bound, as it did not exist when the contract was made; nor could it ratify the contract later, because only a principal existing at the time of the contract can ratify. Principle: A company is not bound by a pre-incorporation contract and cannot ratify it; those who made it on its behalf may be personally liable.

Indian position

Indian law softens this rule. Under Section 15(h) and Section 19(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a company may enforce, and may be compelled to perform, a contract made by its promoters before incorporation, if:

  1. it was made for the purposes of the company;
  2. it is warranted by the terms of its incorporation; and
  3. the company accepts it after incorporation and communicates its acceptance to the other party.
Note

In practice, the safest method is a fresh contract between the company and the other party after incorporation, called a novation. A promoter can protect himself by agreeing that his personal liability will end once the company adopts the contract.

Memorandum of Association

Every company has two basic documents, the memorandum and the articles. The memorandum of association is the charter of the company: it fixes the company's identity and the limits within which it may act.

Contents: Section 4

  1. Name clause: ending with "Limited" for a public company and "Private Limited" for a private company, except in a Section 8 company.
  2. Registered office clause: the State in which the registered office will be situated, which decides the jurisdiction of the Registrar and the courts.
  3. Objects clause: the objects for which the company is formed, and any matter considered necessary in furtherance of them.
  4. Liability clause: whether members' liability is limited and, if so, whether by shares or by guarantee.
  5. Capital clause: the authorised capital and its division into shares.
  6. Subscription clause: the subscribers' desire to form the company and the number of shares each agrees to take.

In a One Person Company, the memorandum also names the nominee. Model forms are in the First Schedule.

Alteration

ChangeRequirement
Capital clauseSection 61
Other clauses (general rule)Special resolution under Section 13
NameAlso approval of the Central Government, now given by the Registrar
Registered office from one State to anotherAlso approval of the Central Government, now given by the Regional Director
Objects, where the company raised money from the public by prospectus and some remains unusedSpecial resolution passed through postal ballot; where SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) rules require it, promoters or controlling shareholders must offer an exit to those who disagree

Shifting the registered office: the cases

When these cases were decided, a shift from one State to another needed a court's confirmation, and the question was whether the State losing the registered office could object.

Case

Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa: Two paper companies sought to move their registered offices from Orissa to West Bengal, only a few years after moving them the other way. Held: The Orissa High Court held that the State could object, found the move not bona fide and likely to cause loss of revenue and administrative difficulty, and refused confirmation. Principle: The State could object to a shift that was not bona fide.

Case

In re Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd.: Held: The Calcutta High Court (Justice A.N. Ray) took a different view: Indian law places no restriction on changing the registered office from one State to another, and the State has no independent right to oppose it. Principle: The State has no independent right of opposition.

Case

Rank Film Distributors of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, West Bengal: Held: A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court confirmed a shift to Maharashtra, holding that the State cannot question the commercial wisdom of a bona fide decision of the shareholders, and that loss of State revenue is not a relevant objection. Principle: Loss of State revenue is no ground to refuse a bona fide shift.

Case

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Government of Maharashtra: Held: The Bombay High Court held that a State may object only to protect its own concrete money interest, for example as a creditor, and that the shareholders are the best judges of what is good for the company. It confirmed the shift on condition that the company gave security for the sales tax it owed the State. Principle: A State may object only to protect its concrete money interest.

Today the Central Government decides under Section 13. Before approving a shift, it may satisfy itself that the creditors, debenture holders and others concerned have consented, or that the company has made sufficient provision or given adequate security for its debts.

Articles of Association

The articles of association are the internal rulebook of the company, dealing with shares and their transfer, class rights, meetings and voting, appointment and powers of directors, and dividends. Section 5 says that the articles shall contain the regulations for the management of the company.

Model articles are in the First Schedule; Table F is the model for a company limited by shares. A company may adopt them fully or partly, and unless its own articles exclude or modify them, the model articles apply.

Articles of Association (continued)

Entrenchment provisions

The articles may contain provisions for entrenchment: certain provisions can be changed only if conditions more restrictive than a special resolution are met.

  • Entrenchment may be made when the company is formed.
  • Later, it needs the agreement of all the members in a private company, and a special resolution in a public company.
  • Investors use it to protect their special rights.

Alteration of articles (Section 14)

A company may alter its articles by a special resolution, subject to these limits:

  • the alteration must not be contrary to the Act or the memorandum; and
  • the power must be exercised in good faith for the benefit of the company as a whole (as held by the courts).

A private company becomes a public company, or the reverse, by altering its articles. Turning a public company into a private company also needs the approval of the Central Government.

Binding effect of the memorandum and articles (Section 10)

When registered, the memorandum and articles bind the company and its members as if they had been signed by the company and by each member. They operate as a contract between the company and each member, and among the members themselves.

Key point

The Section 10 contract binds members only in their capacity as members. An outsider cannot enforce it: a solicitor named in the articles as the permanent legal adviser of the company cannot enforce that article against the company.

Memorandum and articles compared

BasisMemorandumArticles
NatureCharter defining the relation of the company with the outside worldInternal rules of the company
StatusSuperior documentSubordinate; in a conflict, the memorandum prevails
Relation to the ActSubject to the Act (Section 6)Subject to the Act (Section 6)
FunctionTells what the company may doTells how it will do it

Doctrine of Ultra Vires

Meaning and purpose

Ultra vires is Latin for beyond the powers. When a company acts beyond the powers given to it by its memorandum, the act is ultra vires the company. The doctrine protects two groups:

  • Shareholders, who invest on the faith that their money will be used only for the stated objects; and
  • Creditors, who give credit on the faith that the company's assets will not be spent on unknown adventures.

Leading cases

Case

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company Ltd v. Riche (the leading case): the objects clause covered making, selling or hiring railway carriages, wagons and railway plant, and the business of mechanical engineers and general contractors. The directors agreed with Riche to finance the construction of a railway line in Belgium; the company later refused to go on, and Riche sued. Held (House of Lords): "general contractors" had to be read with the words around it and did not cover financing a railway. The contract was beyond the objects, void from the beginning, and could not be ratified even if every shareholder agreed, because the company had no capacity to make it. Riche lost. Principle: an act beyond the objects clause is void and incapable of ratification.

Case

Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India: shareholders of the United India Life Assurance Company sanctioned a ₹2 lakh donation, paid to the trustees of a proposed trust for promoting technical and business knowledge, including knowledge of insurance. After nationalisation of life insurance in 1956, the Life Insurance Corporation took over the business and claimed the money back. The memorandum allowed things incidental or conducive to the objects, but not such donations. Held (Supreme Court, Justice J.C. Shah): a donation giving at most an indirect or remote benefit to the insurance business was ultra vires and of no legal effect; it could not be ratified even by all the shareholders, and the trustees had to return the money. Principle: the objects clause marks the limit of what a company may do with its money.

Companies then learned to draft wide objects clauses to escape the doctrine.

Case

Bell Houses Ltd v. City Wall Properties Ltd: the objects clause of Bell Houses, a property developer, allowed it to carry on any other business which, in the opinion of its directors, could be advantageously carried on in connection with or as ancillary to its main business. Bell Houses introduced City Wall to a source of finance for a commission; City Wall refused to pay, arguing that earning such a commission was beyond Bell Houses' objects. Held (Court of Appeal): the clause was valid; since the directors honestly held the required opinion, the contract was within the company's powers and City Wall had to pay. Principle: a subjective clause, depending on the honest opinion of the directors, can validly widen the objects.

Case

Weeks v. Propert (personal risk for directors): directors of a railway company, having already borrowed the full amount allowed by its special Act, advertised for further loans on debentures, and the plaintiff lent on the faith of the advertisement. The loan was beyond the company's borrowing power, so the company was not bound. Held: the directors were personally liable, because by inviting and accepting the loan they had impliedly warranted their authority to borrow. Principle: directors who act beyond the company's powers may be personally liable to the outsider for breach of an implied warranty of authority.

Consequences of an ultra vires act

  1. The act is void; neither side can enforce it as a contract.
  2. No ratification is possible.
  3. Any member can obtain an injunction to stop the company from doing an ultra vires act.
  4. Directors who apply the company's money to an ultra vires purpose are personally liable to make good the loss.
  5. Directors may be personally liable to the outsider (Weeks v. Propert).
  6. Property acquired through an ultra vires transaction still belongs to the company; and a person who lent money under a void loan may, in some cases, recover what can still be traced.

Three situations distinguished

ActEffect
Beyond the memorandumVoid
Beyond the articles but within the memorandumCan be made valid by altering the articles
Beyond the directors' powers but within the company's powersCan be ratified by the members

Present position

  • England: a company's capacity is no longer limited by its objects.
  • India: the doctrine still exists, because Section 4 still requires an objects clause. But objects clauses are now drafted very widely, and the Companies Act, 2013 no longer requires the objects to be divided into main objects and other objects.
  • The doctrine also survives in Section 245: members can bring a class action to restrain a company from doing an act ultra vires its memorandum or articles.

Doctrine of Constructive Notice

The memorandum, the articles and certain resolutions are public documents registered with the Registrar, and under Section 399 any person can inspect them online. So the law presumes that every person dealing with a company knows their contents, whether he has read them or not. This presumed knowledge is constructive notice.

Example

The articles say that a loan above ₹50 lakh needs the signatures of two directors. Prince lends ₹80 lakh to the company on a document signed by only one director. Prince cannot plead ignorance of the rule, because the articles were open for him to inspect.

  • The doctrine protects the company against outsiders.
  • It is a negative doctrine: it works only against the outsider, never in his favour.
  • England: the law now protects a person dealing with a company in good faith from limitations in its constitution, largely removing the doctrine.
  • India: the doctrine still applies, but its harshness is reduced by the doctrine of indoor management.

Doctrine of Indoor Management

An outsider cannot see what happens inside the company, such as whether a meeting was properly called or a resolution really passed. The doctrine of indoor management says that an outsider dealing with a company in good faith is entitled to assume that the internal requirements have been properly complied with.

Case

Royal British Bank v. Turquand: the company's deed of settlement (its constitution) allowed the directors to borrow on bonds such sums as might be authorised by a general resolution of the company. The directors gave a bond to the bank without such a resolution. When the bank sued, Turquand, the official manager, argued that the bond was not binding. Held: the company was liable. The bank was taken to know the deed, and so knew a resolution was required; but whether it had actually been passed was a matter of internal management which the bank could not know, so it could assume it had been passed. Principle: persons dealing with a company must read its public documents, but need not inquire into its internal proceedings.

Hence the doctrine is also called the rule in Turquand's case. It is based on convenience: business would stop if everyone dealing with a company had to examine its minute books.

Constructive noticeIndoor management
Outsider is presumed to know the public documentsOutsider may assume internal requirements were complied with
Protects the company against outsidersProtects the outsider dealing in good faith
Negative doctrineReduces the harshness of constructive notice

Exceptions

The doctrine does not protect or apply to:

  1. a person who has actual knowledge of the irregularity;
  2. a person put on inquiry by suspicious circumstances who fails to inquire, or who is negligent;
  3. insiders, such as directors, who are expected to know the internal affairs;
  4. forgery, because a forged document is a nullity; and
  5. an act outside the apparent authority of the officer, or one that is void, for example ultra vires the company.
Case

Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated: the company secretary forged the signatures of two directors on a share certificate. Held: the company was not bound. Principle: indoor management does not cover forgery.

Case

Freeman and Lockyer v. Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd: of the company's four directors, Kapoor acted as managing director though never appointed, and the board knew and allowed it. Kapoor engaged architects for work on the company's property; the company refused their fees, saying Kapoor had no authority. Held (Court of Appeal): the company was liable, because by allowing Kapoor to act as managing director, the board had represented that he had the authority usually held by a managing director. Principle: a company is bound by the acts of an officer within his apparent or ostensible authority.

In this case, Lord Justice Diplock set out four conditions:

  1. a representation that the agent had authority;
  2. made by persons with actual authority to manage the business;
  3. reliance on it by the outsider; and
  4. capacity of the company to make such a contract and to delegate the power to make it.

Doctrine of Alter Ego

A company is an artificial person with no mind or body of its own. The law explains how it can know, intend or commit an offence through the doctrine of alter ego (Latin: the other self).

Key point

The persons who control the company, such as its board and senior managers, are its directing mind and will. Their state of mind is the state of mind of the company.

Case

Lennard's Carrying Company v. Asiatic Petroleum Company: a Lennard ship was lost because of defects in its boilers, which a director who actively managed the ship knew or ought to have known of. When Asiatic Petroleum sued for its lost cargo, the company relied on a statute protecting a shipowner from losses happening without its actual fault or privity. Held (House of Lords): this director's fault was the company's own fault. Viscount Haldane (the classic statement): a corporation is an abstraction; its active and directing will must be found in the person who is really its directing mind and will, the very ego and centre of its personality.

Case

Iridium India Telecom Ltd v. Motorola Incorporated: Held (Supreme Court): a company can be prosecuted even for an offence needing a guilty mind, such as cheating. Principle: the intention of those forming its directing mind and will is attributed to the company.

Case

Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation: can the principle be reversed, making a director liable for the company's offence merely because he controls it? Held (Supreme Court): no. A chairman or director can be made an accused along with the company only where (i) there is sufficient evidence of his own active role coupled with criminal intent, or (ii) the statute itself makes such persons vicariously liable. Principle: the controllers' mind is attributed to the company, but the company's acts are not automatically attributed to the controllers.

Share Capital: Meaning of Share and Share Capital

A company raises money mainly in two ways: by issuing shares, which make the investor an owner; and by borrowing (including debentures and deposits), which makes the investor a creditor.

Meaning of share

Key point

Section 2(84): a share means a share in the share capital of a company, and includes stock. Simply, a share is a unit of ownership.

Example

If a company's capital is divided into one lakh shares, a holder of one thousand shares owns one per cent of it.

A share carries a bundle of rights: to vote, to dividend when declared, and to a share of any surplus on winding up. It also carries a liability to pay the full price of the share when called.

Senses of capital

  • Authorised (nominal) capital: the maximum capital the memorandum allows the company to issue.
  • Issued capital: the part actually offered for subscription.
  • Subscribed capital: the part of the issued capital people actually agree to take.
  • Called up capital: the part of the subscribed capital for which payment has been demanded.
  • Paid up capital: the amount actually received.
Example

Authorised capital ₹10 crore; shares issued worth ₹6 crore; applications for ₹5 crore; ₹4 crore called up; ₹3 crore 90 lakh received. These are its authorised, issued, subscribed, called up and paid up capital.

Reserve capital (Section 65): an unlimited company registering as a limited company may provide that part of its uncalled capital can be called up only on a winding up.

Classes of Share Capital

Section 43 recognises only two kinds of share capital: equity and preference.

  • Preference share capital carries two preferential rights: (i) to dividend, a fixed amount or at a fixed rate; and (ii) to repayment of capital on winding up.
  • Equity share capital is all share capital that is not preference capital. It may carry ordinary voting rights, or differential rights as to dividend, voting or otherwise.

Shares with differential voting rights

They let founders raise money without losing control. The Rules allow them only under conditions, such as authorisation by the articles and by the shareholders, and they cannot carry more than 74 per cent of the total voting power.

Voting rights (Section 47)

  • Equity shareholder: votes on every resolution; on a poll, in proportion to his share of the paid up equity capital.
  • Preference shareholder: normally votes only on resolutions directly affecting his rights, and on resolutions for winding up or for repayment or reduction of capital.
  • If the dividend on his class of preference shares is unpaid for two years or more, he votes on every resolution.

Kinds of preference shares

BasisKindsMeaning
Arrears of dividendCumulative / non cumulativeIn cumulative shares, unpaid dividend is carried forward and must be paid before equity shareholders get any dividend
Surplus profitsParticipating / non participatingParticipating shares also share in surplus profits
ConversionConvertible / non convertibleConvertible shares can be converted into equity shares

Redemption of preference shares (Section 55)

  • Irredeemable preference shares can no longer be issued.
  • Every preference share must be redeemed within 20 years of issue. Companies in infrastructure projects may issue them for up to 30 years, redeeming part every year from the 21st year.
  • Redemption only out of profits available for dividend or the proceeds of a fresh issue made for that purpose; only fully paid shares can be redeemed.
  • On redemption out of profits, an equal amount goes to a capital redemption reserve account, so that the capital protecting creditors does not simply disappear.
  • Section 55(3): a company unable to redeem may, with the consent of holders of three-fourths in value of those shares and the approval of the Tribunal, issue fresh redeemable preference shares in their place.
Case

Bank of Baroda v. Aban Offshore Ltd: the bank held cumulative redeemable preference shares worth ₹30 crore in a listed company, which failed to redeem them or pay the dividend. The Tribunal held that Section 55(3) gives a remedy only to the company, so the preference shareholder had no standing. The Appellate Tribunal set this aside: preference shareholders are not remediless; they may invoke the Tribunal's inherent powers or, being members, bring a class action under Section 245. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, but left the interpretation of the two sections open. Principle: a preference shareholder is a member, and the Tribunal will not leave him without a remedy when the company fails to redeem.

Issue of Shares at a Premium and at a Discount

Premium (Section 52)

Shares issued above face value are issued at a premium. The premium must go to a separate securities premium account, treated almost like capital, which can be used only for:

  1. issuing fully paid bonus shares;
  2. writing off preliminary expenses and the expenses of an issue;
  3. providing for the premium payable on redemption of preference shares or debentures; and
  4. buying back the company's own shares.
Case

Henry Head and Company Ltd v. Ropner Holdings Ltd: a holding company formed to merge two shipping companies issued its shares to their shareholders in exchange for their shares, which were worth far more than the face value of the shares issued. Was the excess to be credited to the share premium account though no cash was received? Held: yes; the premium rule applies whenever shares are issued for consideration worth more than face value, whether cash or property. Principle: such value is locked in and cannot be paid out as dividend.

Discount (Section 53)

Issuing shares at a discount is prohibited, and such an issue is void. Only two exceptions:

  1. sweat equity shares; and
  2. shares issued to creditors on conversion of their debt under a statutory resolution plan or a debt restructuring scheme approved under the Reserve Bank's guidelines.

Transfer and Transmission of Securities

A shareholder who sells his shares to leave the company makes a transfer; when he dies and his shares pass to someone else, there is transmission.

Transfer (Section 56)

Transfer is a voluntary act of the holder. A company cannot register a transfer of securities held in physical form without a proper instrument of transfer, duly stamped, dated, signed by or on behalf of both transferor and transferee, and delivered to the company with the share certificate. Securities held with a depository are transferred electronically. New certificates must be delivered within one month of receiving the instrument of transfer.

Transmission

Transmission happens by operation of law, not by any act of the holder: on the death or insolvency of a shareholder, or the winding up of a shareholder that is a company. On death, the shares pass to the legal representative; the company registers the transmission on proof of title such as a succession certificate, probate or letters of administration.

Nomination (Section 72): a holder may nominate a person in whom the securities will vest on his death.

Case

Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (2023): Held (Supreme Court): a nominee of shares does not become their absolute owner; he holds them only in a fiduciary capacity, and the legal heirs remain entitled under the law of succession.

Transfer and transmission compared

BasisTransferTransmission
NatureDeliberate act of the partiesOperation of law
DocumentInstrument of transferProof of the event and of title only
Stamp dutyPayableNot payable
ConsiderationUsually for considerationNone
Example

Farhan sells his shares to Prince: transfer. Farhan dies and his shares go to his son: transmission.

Refusal to register (Section 58) and rectification (Section 59)

A private company may refuse if its articles give it that power, since restricting transfer is part of its nature. In a public company, securities are freely transferable.

PointPrivate companyPublic company
RefusalNotice of refusal, with reasons, within 30 days of receiving the instrument of transfer or intimation of transmissionRefusal without sufficient cause can be appealed
Appeal to the TribunalWithin 30 days of receiving the notice, or 60 days of lodging the transfer if no notice is sentWithin 60 days of the refusal, or 90 days of lodging the transfer if no reply is received
  • The Tribunal may direct the company to register the transfer.
  • A contract between persons about transfer of securities, such as a right of first refusal in a shareholders agreement, is enforceable even in a public company (Section 58).
  • If a name is wrongly entered in or omitted from the register of members, the aggrieved person may apply to the Tribunal for rectification (Section 59).
Case

Vickers Systems International Ltd v. Mahesh P. Keswani: shares were lodged for transfer from Mahesh Keswani in his own name to himself as karta of his Hindu undivided family (HUF). A karta is the head who manages the property of such a family. Believing an HUF is not a legal person, the company proposed to refuse and referred the question to the Company Law Board. Held: refusal was not justified; on a transfer, the only question is whether the deed was validly executed and duly lodged. The company was directed to register the shares in his name as karta. Principle: a transfer cannot be refused merely because the transferee will hold the shares as karta of an HUF.

Case

Ghanshyam Chaturbhuj v. Industrial Ceramics Pvt Ltd: the company admitted the petitioner's shares but for years did not issue certificates, pleading no funds to print them. His criminal complaint against the company and directors was dismissed by the Magistrate as time-barred. Held (Madras High Court): dismissal set aside; since the law imposed a fine for every day the default continued, failure to deliver share certificates is a continuing offence. Principle: the duty to deliver share certificates continues until they are delivered. (The time limit is now fixed by Section 56(4).)

Alteration of Share Capital

Section 61: a limited company having a share capital, if authorised by its articles, may alter its capital clause in general meeting in five ways:

  1. Increase its authorised capital.
  2. Consolidate shares into shares of a larger amount (ten ₹10 shares into one ₹100 share); if this changes shareholders' voting percentage, Tribunal approval is needed.
  3. Convert fully paid shares into stock, and reconvert stock into shares.
  4. Sub-divide shares into shares of a smaller amount (one ₹10 share into ten ₹1 shares).
  5. Cancel shares not taken or agreed to be taken by anyone. This reduces authorised capital but is not a reduction of share capital in the legal sense.

Notice of alteration must be filed with the Registrar within 30 days (Section 64).

Reduction of Share Capital

Reduction is far more serious than alteration, because paid up capital is the cushion that protects creditors; if capital could be freely returned to members, creditors would be left with an empty shell.

Key point

Section 66: share capital can be reduced only by a special resolution confirmed by the Tribunal.

Reduction may be in any manner, in particular by:

  1. extinguishing or reducing liability on shares not fully paid;
  2. cancelling paid up capital that is lost or unrepresented by available assets; or
  3. paying off paid up capital in excess of the company's needs.

Safeguards

  • The Tribunal gives notice to the Central Government, the Registrar, SEBI (for a listed company) and the creditors, who may make representations within three months.
  • It confirms only if every creditor's debt or claim has been discharged, determined or secured, or his consent obtained.
  • The accounting treatment must match the accounting standards.
  • No reduction is allowed while the company is in arrears in repaying deposits or interest on them.

Buy-back of Shares

Case

Trevor v. Whitworth: Held (House of Lords): a company cannot buy its own shares, because it would reduce capital without the safeguards of a reduction.

Today Section 68 permits buy-back within strict limits. Purposes: returning surplus cash to shareholders, supporting the share price, or improving the earnings per share of the remaining shares.

Conditions (Section 68)

  1. Authorised by the articles.
  2. A special resolution; but the Board alone may approve up to 10 per cent of total paid up equity capital and free reserves.
  3. Not more than 25 per cent of total paid up capital and free reserves; for equity shares, not more than 25 per cent of paid up equity capital in a financial year.
  4. Post buy-back debts not more than twice the paid up capital and free reserves.
  5. Only fully paid shares.
  6. Funded only from free reserves, the securities premium account, or proceeds of an earlier issue of a different kind of shares or securities.
  7. No second buy-back within one year of the close of the first.

After the buy-back

  • Complete within one year of the resolution.
  • Extinguish and physically destroy the shares within seven days of completion.
  • No issue of the same kind of shares for six months, except bonus shares and shares from existing obligations such as conversion of debentures.
  • Section 69: if financed from free reserves or the securities premium account, an amount equal to the nominal value of the shares bought back goes to the capital redemption reserve account.

Prohibitions (Section 70)

  • No buy-back through a subsidiary or an investment company.
  • No buy-back after a default in repaying deposits, debentures, preference shares or term loans, or in paying a declared dividend, until three years after the default is remedied.

Listed companies must also follow the SEBI buy-back regulations on permitted methods, such as a tender offer to all shareholders in proportion to their holdings.

Bonus Shares

In a bonus issue, the company converts part of its accumulated reserves into share capital and gives new fully paid shares free to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings.

Example

On a one-for-one bonus, Prince, holding 100 shares, gets 100 more free. Nothing leaves the company; reserves simply become capital. The market price per share usually falls roughly in proportion, and Prince owns the same slice of the company, cut into more pieces.

Conditions (Section 63)

  • Only out of free reserves, the securities premium account or the capital redemption reserve account.
  • Never by capitalising revaluation reserves, since such a gain exists only on paper.
  • Authorised by the articles, recommended by the Board and approved in general meeting.
  • No default in interest or principal on fixed deposits or debt securities, or in statutory employee dues such as provident fund, gratuity and bonus.
  • Partly paid shares must first be made fully paid.
  • Not in lieu of dividend.
  • Once announced by the Board, it cannot be withdrawn.

Rights Issue (Further Issue of Shares)

Section 62: whenever a company proposes to increase its subscribed capital by issuing further shares, it must first offer them to the existing equity shareholders in proportion to their paid up capital. This is a rights issue. Its purpose is to prevent dilution of the percentage holding and voting power of existing shareholders.

Example

Zoya holds 10 per cent of a company. If new shares go only to outsiders, her holding may fall to 5 per cent. A rights issue lets her take 10 per cent of the new shares and keep her position.

Procedure

  • Offer by notice stating the number of shares and the acceptance period, normally 15 to 30 days.
  • Notice sent at least three days before the issue opens.
  • Unless the articles say otherwise, the offer includes a right to renounce in favour of any other person.
  • If a shareholder neither accepts nor renounces in time, the Board may dispose of the shares in a manner not disadvantageous to the shareholders and the company.
  • A private company may shorten these periods with written or electronic consent of 90 per cent of its members.

Issue to others

  1. Employees, under an employee stock option scheme approved by special resolution. An employee stock option is a right to buy shares at a future date at a price fixed in advance.
  2. Any persons, by preferential allotment approved by special resolution, at a price based on a registered valuer's valuation.
Case

Nanalal Zaver v. Bombay Life Assurance Company Ltd (old rule on further issues): the company had issued only part of its authorised capital. While an industrialist was buying up its shares in the market to gain control, the directors issued the remaining unissued authorised capital at a premium, offering it to existing members at four new shares for every five held. Two shareholders sued, alleging breach of the rule on further issues and bad faith, the issue being meant only to keep control from the outsider. Held (Supreme Court): appeal dismissed. Two judges held that the rule did apply to an issue out of unissued authorised capital. All found no breach, since the shares were offered only to existing members in the same proportion, though a small residue was left. The issue was valid because the company genuinely needed the money; a secondary motive of keeping out an outsider did not invalidate it. Principle: an issue made mainly for a genuine need of the company is valid even if it incidentally helps the directors keep control.

Sweat Equity Shares

Key point

Sweat equity shares are equity shares issued to directors or employees at a discount, or for consideration other than cash, for providing know-how, making available intellectual property rights, or adding value in similar ways. They reward sweat, not cash.

Example

A start-up unable to pay large salaries gives its key engineer sweat equity for the software he has developed.

  • Section 54: a special resolution stating the number of shares, current market price, consideration and the class of directors or employees receiving them.
  • Annual limit: 15 per cent of existing paid up equity capital, or shares worth ₹5 crore, whichever is higher.
  • Overall limit: 25 per cent of paid up equity capital at any time; a start-up may go up to 50 per cent within ten years of incorporation.
  • Lock-in of three years; they rank equally with other equity shares.

Debentures

Key point

Section 2(30): debenture includes debenture stock, bonds or any other instrument of a company evidencing a debt, whether or not it creates a charge on the company's assets. Simply, it is a written acknowledgement of a loan to the company, usually at a fixed rate of interest and repayable on a fixed date.

Shareholder and debenture holder compared

Key point

The difference between a shareholder and a debenture holder is a favourite examination question.

BasisShareholderDebenture holder
StatusOwnerCreditor
ReturnDividend, only if there are profits and it is declaredInterest, whether or not there are profits
VotingHas voting rightsNo voting rights (Section 71(2))
SecurityNever securedUsually secured by a charge on assets
Winding upPaid after debenture holdersPaid before shareholders
DiscountNot allowed, except in the permitted casesAllowed

Kinds of debentures

  • Secured (backed by a charge on assets) and unsecured.
  • Redeemable: repaid at a fixed time.
  • Convertible into shares, fully or partly; issued only with a special resolution (Section 71(1)). Non convertible debentures remain loans throughout.
  • Public and listed, or privately placed.

Debenture trustee and redemption reserve

  • Before offering debentures to the public or to more than 500 members, a company must appoint a debenture trustee, usually a bank or a SEBI-registered trusteeship company, who protects the debenture holders and can act for them on default.
  • A debenture redemption reserve is created out of profits so that money is available on repayment. Under the present Rules, it is required only for unlisted companies other than financial companies, at 10 per cent of outstanding debentures.

Invitation and Acceptance of Deposits

Because many savers lost money to companies that took deposits and vanished, Sections 73 to 76 strictly control deposits.

  • Section 73: no company shall invite, accept or renew deposits from the public, except as the Act allows.
  • Deposits from members are allowed subject to conditions such as a resolution in general meeting, a circular to members filed with the Registrar, and a deposit repayment reserve.
  • Section 76: only an eligible public company, with net worth of at least ₹100 crore or turnover of at least ₹500 crore and a credit rating, may accept deposits from the public.
  • Many receipts are not deposits, such as bank loans, advances for supply of goods, and money from a director who declares it is his own, not borrowed.
  • Section 75: if deposits were accepted with intent to defraud depositors, every responsible officer is personally liable for their losses without any limitation of liability.
  • Banks and non banking financial companies are governed by the Reserve Bank of India instead.

Prospectus

A public company raising money from the public must tell investors the truth about itself in a prospectus.

Key point

Section 2(70): a prospectus is any document described or issued as a prospectus, including a red herring and a shelf prospectus, and any notice, circular, advertisement or other document inviting offers from the public for subscription or purchase of securities of a body corporate. In contract law, the prospectus is only an invitation; the investor makes the offer by applying, and the company accepts by allotting.

Case

Nash v. Lynde (who is the public?): a document marked "strictly private and confidential", with an application form, passed privately from the managing director through a small chain of acquaintances. Held (House of Lords): not an offer to the public, so not a prospectus. No fixed number decides; the test is whether the offer is open to anyone who comes forward with his money, or made privately to a limited circle. Principle: a private communication to selected persons is not a prospectus. (Private placement rules now give this idea fixed numbers.)

Case

Pramatha Nath Sanyal v. Kali Kumar Dutt: years after filing its formal prospectus, a company published a newspaper advertisement offering shares to the public, referring to that prospectus, without filing the advertisement. The company and its secretary were convicted. Held (Calcutta High Court): convictions upheld; the advertisement was itself a prospectus and had to be filed. Principle: the label does not matter; any document inviting the public to buy shares is a prospectus.

Kinds of prospectus

KindSectionFeatures
Red herring32Lacks complete details of price or quantity; used in book building, where price is discovered through investors' bids; the final prospectus is filed later
Shelf31For certain classes of companies, such as banks and financial institutions, raising money in stages; valid one year from opening of the first offer; later offers need only an information memorandum with new facts
Abridged33Short summary that must accompany every application form
Deemed25Where securities are allotted to an intermediary with a view to offer for sale to the public, the offer document is treated as the company's prospectus
Offer for sale by existing shareholders28Governed by Section 28

Contents and registration (Section 26)

  • Must be dated and state the information and reports prescribed by the Act and SEBI: objects of the issue, capital structure, names of directors and promoters, risk factors, audited financial statements, pending litigation and minimum subscription.
  • A copy signed by every director, with the consents of experts named in it, must be delivered to the Registrar on or before publication.
  • Valid only if issued within 90 days of that delivery.
  • Listed issues follow the SEBI Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, 2018.

Minimum subscription (Section 39)

If the minimum subscription is not received within the prescribed time, application money must be refunded. Under the SEBI rules, the minimum subscription for a public issue of shares is 90 per cent of the issue.

Misstatement in a Prospectus

Common law: Derry v. Peek

Case

Derry v. Peek: a Plymouth tramway company's special Act allowed animal-drawn trams, and steam or mechanical power only with Board of Trade consent. The directors' prospectus stated that the company had the right to use steam power, honestly believing consent would follow as a matter of course. Peek bought shares relying on it; consent was refused, the company was wound up, and Peek sued the directors for fraud. Held (House of Lords): the directors were not liable. Lord Herschell: fraud is proved when a false statement is made (i) knowingly, (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. A statement made with an honest belief in its truth is not fraudulent, even if the grounds for that belief are not reasonable. Principle: deceit requires dishonesty, not mere carelessness.

The decision left investors without a remedy against careless directors, so the British Parliament passed the Directors Liability Act, 1890 the next year, making directors liable for untrue statements in a prospectus unless they proved reasonable grounds for their belief. The Indian Act goes much further.

Civil liability (Section 35)

A person who subscribes relying on a misleading statement, inclusion or omission in a prospectus and suffers loss can claim compensation from:

  • the company; every director at the time of issue; every person named as a director with his consent;
  • every promoter; every person who authorised the issue; and every expert whose statement was included.

Escape is possible only in narrow cases, for example where he withdrew consent to become a director before the issue, or the prospectus was issued without his knowledge and he gave public notice as soon as he learnt of it. Where the prospectus was issued with intent to defraud, every such person is personally liable without any limitation of liability.

Criminal liability (Section 34 with Section 447)

Every person who authorises the issue of a prospectus containing an untrue or misleading statement is liable under Section 447 (fraud), unless he proves that the statement or omission was immaterial, or that he had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe up to the time of issue, that it was true.

Section 447: imprisonment from six months to ten years, and fine from the amount involved up to three times that amount. Small frauds not involving public interest attract lighter punishment.

Other provisions

  • Section 36: punishes knowingly or recklessly making a false or misleading statement, or deliberately concealing material facts, to induce another person to invest.
  • Section 37: affected persons, or a group of them, may sue for these wrongs.
Case

A.P.L. Industries Ltd v. Securities and Exchange Board of India: the company's 1996 public issue fell below the minimum subscription after withdrawals. SEBI directed a refund with interest, which became final after long litigation. When the company still did not pay, the Delhi High Court fixed a timetable and directed refunds with interest at 15 per cent a year to about 1,500 applicants, holding that a dispute between the company and its bankers over interest could not delay the refund. Principle: when minimum subscription is not received, investors must get their money back with interest, and SEBI can enforce this.

Misstatement in a Prospectus: Duty of Full Disclosure (continued)

Case

DLF Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India: complaints alleged that DLF's offer document for its 2007 public issue did not disclose a criminal case pending against a company said to be connected with it. SEBI ordered an investigation, which DLF challenged. Held: the Delhi High Court (single judge, then Division Bench) dismissed the challenge. SEBI needs only a rational basis, formed in good faith, to order an investigation, not proof of a violation, and may look at the facts of an unlisted associate where they bear on the issuer's disclosure duty. The investigation later led to a SEBI order barring the company from the securities market, which the Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside in 2015. Principle: the duty of full disclosure in an offer document is taken seriously; the regulator may investigate any serious doubt about it.

Private Placement

Private placement is an offer of securities to a selected group of persons instead of the public. It is governed by Section 42, which imposes strict limits so that it does not become a public issue by the back door.

Under Section 23, a private company may issue securities only by a rights issue, a bonus issue or a private placement; a public company may also make a public offer.

Conditions of a private placement

  1. The offer can be made only to identified persons, not more than 200 in a financial year.
  2. The count of 200 excludes qualified institutional buyers (such as banks and mutual funds) and employees receiving shares under a stock option scheme.
  3. The offer is made through a private placement offer letter to named persons.
  4. No public advertisement is allowed.
  5. The money must come from the subscriber's bank account, not in cash.
  6. Allotment must be made within 60 days of receiving the money; otherwise the money must be refunded within the next 15 days, failing which interest at 12% a year is payable.
Key point

An offer made in breach of these rules is treated as a public offer, with all its consequences under the Act and the securities laws.

Cases on private placement

Case

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India: two Sahara group companies issued optionally fully convertible debentures to millions of investors across the country, collecting more than 24,000 crore rupees, and claimed that, being a private placement, the issue was beyond SEBI's power. Held: the Supreme Court rejected this. Under the old Act, an offer to 50 or more persons was deemed an offer to the public, whatever the company called it; so this was a public issue, the rules on prospectus and listing applied, and SEBI had jurisdiction. The companies were directed to refund the entire amount with interest at 15% a year through SEBI, and a retired Supreme Court judge was appointed to oversee compliance. Principle: the substance of an offer, not its label, decides whether it is a public issue.

Case

Zenith Highrise Infracon Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India: redeemable preference shares were privately placed with friends and relatives of the company's members and directors. SEBI counted 50 allottees, treated it as a deemed public issue under the old Act and ordered a refund with interest. Held: the Securities Appellate Tribunal found that some names had been counted two or three times; the true number was 47. Following the Sahara case, an allotment to fewer than 50 persons was a private issue, and SEBI's order was set aside. Principle: whether an issue is private or public depends on the true number of persons to whom it is made.

Case

Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India: an unlisted company made a rights issue with a right of renunciation, and the shares finally went to 163 persons, some not its shareholders. SEBI treated it as a public issue made without complying with the law and ordered a refund. A single judge of the Kerala High Court quashed the order, holding that under the old Act SEBI's power over issues covered only listed companies and companies intending to list, the power over others lying with the Central Government. Held: a Division Bench reversed; the old provision did not bar SEBI from acting under its own Act and guidelines to protect investors, even against an unlisted company. The company was left to its statutory appeal on the merits. Principle: a company that in substance offers securities to the public cannot escape the securities regulator merely because it is unlisted.

Unit 3: Membership in a Company and Meetings

The members own the company, and its decisions are taken in meetings. This unit covers both.

Meaning of a Member

Section 2(55) defines a member in three parts:

  1. Subscribers to the memorandum are deemed to have agreed to become members and become members on registration, even before their names are entered in the register.
  2. Every other person who agrees in writing to become a member and whose name is entered in the register of members.
  3. Every person holding shares whose name is entered as a beneficial owner in the records of a depository.
Key point

For most people, membership needs two things: an agreement to become a member and an entry in the register.

Member and shareholder

The two are usually the same, but not always:

PersonMember?Shareholder?
Member of a company limited by guarantee without share capitalYesNo (such a company has members but no shareholders)
Buyer of shares whose name is not yet in the registerNot yet, in lawMay call himself a shareholder
Case

Herdilia Unimers Limited v. Smt. Renu Jain: Renu Jain applied for 100 shares; the company encashed her cheque, but her share certificate did not reach her in time. She filed a criminal complaint against the company and its officers for the delay, which they asked the Rajasthan High Court to quash, questioning whether she was a shareholder entitled to complain. Held: quashing refused. Once shares are allotted and the name is entered in the register, the person becomes a shareholder even without receiving the certificate. Principle: membership comes from allotment and entry in the register, not from the certificate, which is only evidence of title.

Modes of Acquiring Membership

  1. By subscribing to the memorandum.
  2. By applying for shares and receiving an allotment.
  3. By buying shares and getting the transfer registered.
  4. By transmission, when shares pass to him on the death of a holder.
  5. By holding shares in a depository as a beneficial owner.
  6. By estoppel: a person who knowingly allows his name to remain on the register and behaves like a member cannot later deny that he is one.

Who can become a member

Any person competent to contract.

  • Minor: cannot contract, so cannot become a member by himself; but fully paid shares, which carry no further liability, may be held for him through a guardian.
  • Company: can hold shares in another company if its memorandum allows.
  • Subsidiary (Section 19): cannot hold shares in its holding company, except as the legal representative of a deceased member, as a trustee, or where it held them before becoming a subsidiary; in the last case it cannot vote them.
  • Partnership firm: not a legal person, so its shares are held in the names of its partners.
  • Hindu undivided family: holds shares through its karta (the Vickers case, Unit 2).
  • Foreign national: may hold shares, subject to the foreign exchange laws.

Rights and Privileges of Members

The rights of members fall into five groups:

  1. Financial rights: to receive dividend when declared, to receive bonus shares, to be offered rights shares, and to share in the surplus on winding up.
  2. Rights of information: to receive notices of general meetings and copies of the financial statements and reports; to inspect the registers, annual returns and minutes of general meetings.
  3. Rights of control: to attend and vote at general meetings, appoint a proxy, elect and remove directors, requisition an extraordinary general meeting, and demand a poll.
  4. Right to transfer shares, subject to the articles.
  5. Rights of protection: to apply to the Tribunal against oppression and mismanagement, to join a class action, and in some cases to petition for winding up.
Key point

Most rights are exercised collectively through meetings, but a few, such as the right to vote and the right to receive a declared dividend, are personal rights that any single member can enforce.

Register of Members

Section 88: every company must keep a register of members showing each member's name and address, the shares held and the date on which he became a member. It may be kept in electronic form. For shares held with a depository, the depository's register of beneficial owners is treated as the register of members for those shares.

Section 95: the register is prima facie evidence of the matters entered in it, so an entry is taken as correct unless proved otherwise.

Disclosure of the real owner

The register shows the holder, but not always the real owner. So:

  • Section 89: a registered holder who does not hold the beneficial interest must declare this to the company, and so must the person who really holds that interest.
  • Section 90: every individual holding a significant beneficial ownership (fixed by the Rules at 10% or more), or exercising significant influence or control, must disclose it to the company.

If the register itself is wrong, the remedy is rectification by the Tribunal under Section 59 (Unit 2).

Case

Lalithamba Bai v. Harrisons Malayalam Limited: her father held shares in a United Kingdom company whose Indian business was later taken over by Harrisons Malayalam Limited. After his death, she asked the Kerala High Court to rectify the Indian company's register by entering her as a member. Held: petition dismissed. First, transmission of the foreign shares to her was not proved with certainty. Second, a shareholding in one company does not become membership of another merely because the second took over the Indian assets and liabilities of the first; a share is a bundle of rights against the particular company that issued it. Principle: the register will be rectified only for a person who clearly proves a right to membership of that very company.

Dematerialisation and Rematerialisation of Securities

Shares were once issued only as paper certificates: transfers took weeks, and certificates were lost, stolen or forged. The Depositories Act, 1996 changed this: most shares now exist only as electronic entries, like money in a bank account.

  • Depository: an institution holding securities in electronic form. India has two: the National Securities Depository Limited and the Central Depository Services India Limited.
  • Depository participant: an intermediary such as a bank or stockbroker, through whom the investor deals with a depository and with whom he opens a demat account.
DematerialisationRematerialisation
Converting paper certificates into electronic holdings: the investor surrenders the certificates through the participant, the company verifies and cancels them, and the shares are credited to his demat account.The reverse: converting electronic holdings back into paper certificates. Still permitted in some cases, but rarely useful, since listed securities can be transferred only in demat form.
  • Section 10: the depository is deemed the registered owner only for effecting transfers; it has no voting or other rights. The beneficial owner (the investor) enjoys all the rights and bears all the liabilities of a shareholder.
  • Section 9: securities in a depository are fungible; individual shares are not identified by distinctive numbers.
  • Transfer: simply a debit to the seller's account and a credit to the buyer's; no instrument of transfer is needed.
  • Transmission: the heir or nominee applies to the participant with the death certificate, and the securities move into his account.
Key point

The principles of transfer and transmission remain the same in demat form; only the machinery has changed.

Is demat compulsory?

  • Listed companies: largely yes. Since April 2019, transfers of listed securities can be made only in demat form; since January 2022, transmission and transposition as well.
  • Unlisted public companies: under Section 29 and the Rules, must issue securities only in demat form and help dematerialise existing securities.
  • Private companies: under a Rule notified in 2023, the same applies, except to small companies and government companies.

A shareholder of such a company must dematerialise his holding before transferring shares or subscribing to new ones.

Company Meetings

A company is an artificial person, so its decisions are taken by human beings meeting together: some by the members in general meeting, others by the directors in Board meetings. If the rules for either are broken, a decision may be invalid.

  • General meetings: the annual general meeting and the extraordinary general meeting.
  • Class meetings of a particular class of shareholders, e.g. to vary the rights of that class.
  • Meetings of creditors, e.g. in a scheme of arrangement.

Annual General Meeting

The annual general meeting (AGM) is the yearly meeting of the members, at which the directors account for their stewardship. Under Section 96:

  • Every company other than a One Person Company must hold one every year.
  • First AGM: within 9 months of the close of the first financial year.
  • Later AGMs: within 6 months of the close of the financial year, with not more than 15 months between two AGMs.
  • Extension: the Registrar may extend by up to 3 months for a special reason, but not for the first AGM.
  • Time: business hours, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., on a day that is not a national holiday.
  • Place: the registered office or another place in the same city, town or village; an unlisted company may hold it anywhere in India if all members consent in advance.

Ordinary business

  1. Considering the financial statements and the reports of the Board and the auditors.
  2. Declaring a dividend.
  3. Appointing directors in place of those retiring.
  4. Appointing the auditors and fixing their remuneration.

Everything else is special business.

Failure to hold the AGM

  1. Section 97: any member may apply to the Tribunal, which may call the meeting or direct it to be called, give any directions it thinks fit, and even direct that one member present in person or by proxy shall be deemed to constitute the meeting.
  2. Section 99: the company and every officer in default are punishable with a fine.
  3. Continued failure to file financial statements and annual returns can disqualify the directors (Unit 4).
Case

Mathew v. Nadukkara Agro Processing Company Limited: a new company postponed its first AGM a day before it was due, citing unavoidable reasons and fixing no new date. A shareholder approached the Kerala High Court, where the company relied on a pending dispute about its refusal to allot shares to certain applicants. Held: nothing in the Act allows deferment beyond the statutory time because of such a dispute; failure to hold the meeting is a continuing default. The company was directed to hold the AGM within one month, on the list of shareholders as on the original due date, with no fresh nominations to the Board. Principle: the duty to hold the AGM in time is mandatory.

Case

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board v. IJM India Infrastructure Limited: the Housing Board and IJM formed a joint venture company to develop a township. After the division of the State, the successor Housing Board did not nominate its directors, so the company could not hold its AGM. On an application under Section 97, the Tribunal excused the default, fixed a time for the meeting and asked the Housing Board to send its nominee directors. Held: the Appellate Tribunal upheld this; if a shareholder endlessly delays sending its nominee, the company's AGMs cannot remain suspended, and the Housing Board could raise its objections at the meeting itself. Principle: a shareholder cannot block the AGM by its own inaction.

Case

Tapan Kumar Chowdhury v. Registrar of Companies: a West Bengal tea company could not hold its AGM in time because of serious labour unrest at its estate, during which its directors were prevented from entering the estate and the office. One director sought relief from liability for the default in the Calcutta High Court. Held: the court could, and did, excuse an individual officer who acted honestly and reasonably and whose default was beyond his control; but it could not extend the time for the meeting, or relieve the company or the other directors, who had not applied. Principle: such relief is personal to the officer who applies and proves honest conduct. Under the present Act, the power is in Section 463.

Note

Updated from the lecture: the lecture gave the petitioner's surname in Devanagari, which had been transliterated as Chaudhuri. The correct position is that the judgment is reported as Tapan Kumar Chowdhury v. Registrar of Companies (Calcutta High Court, 2003). Source: Tapan Kumar Chowdhury vs Registrar Of Companies And Anr., Calcutta High Court (Indian Kanoon).

Case

Ramprasad Dalmia v. Board of Directors, Milkfood Limited: a shareholder asked the Tribunal to declare a listed company's AGM void and order a fresh one, alleging that the directors were absent, resolutions were declared passed without a proper vote, and dissenting shareholders were threatened. He had not attended and relied only on the word of an unnamed representative, without particulars or affidavits. Held: the Tribunal dismissed the petition and the Appellate Tribunal agreed; no prima facie case was made out, so no roving inquiry into the conduct of the meeting was needed. Principle: a member challenging the conduct of a meeting must bring specific facts and evidence, not general allegations.

Extraordinary General Meeting

Any general meeting other than the AGM; it deals with business that cannot wait for the next AGM. The Board may call it at any time.

Requisition by members (Section 100)

  • The Board must call it on the requisition of members holding at least one tenth of the paid-up capital carrying voting rights (in a company without share capital, one tenth of the total voting power).
  • The requisition must state the matters to be considered.
  • Within 21 days, the Board must call a meeting to be held within 45 days of receiving the requisition.
  • If the Board fails, the requisitionists may themselves call and hold it within 3 months.
  • The company must repay their reasonable expenses and deduct them from the fees or remuneration of the directors in default.

Meeting ordered by the Tribunal (Section 98)

Where it is impracticable to call or conduct a meeting (other than an AGM) in the normal way, e.g. because of a deadlock between two groups, the Tribunal, on its own motion or on the application of a director or a member entitled to vote, may order a meeting to be called, held and conducted as it thinks fit.

Key point

Section 97: Tribunal calls an AGM the company failed to hold (application by any member). Section 98: Tribunal orders a meeting other than an AGM where calling or conducting it normally is impracticable.

Procedure at General Meetings

Notice (Section 101)

  • At least 21 clear days' notice, in writing or by electronic mode. Clear days exclude the day of sending the notice and the day of the meeting.
  • It must state the place, date, day and hour of the meeting and the business to be transacted.
  • It must be sent to every member, the legal representative of a deceased member, the assignee of an insolvent member, the auditors and every director.
  • Accidental omission to give notice to anyone entitled, or its non-receipt, does not invalidate the meeting. A defective notice is a different matter (see the case below).
Case

Prachi Insurance Company Limited v. Choudhury Madhusudandas: decided by the Orissa High Court, which laid down a clear rule. Held: if the notice does not state the time of the meeting and the other particulars required by law, the meeting is invalid, and all the resolutions passed at it have no effect. Principle: unlike an accidental omission to give notice, a notice that omits the time and other particulars required by law invalidates the meeting and all the resolutions passed at it.

Shorter notice

MeetingConsent needed
Annual general meetingAt least 95% of the members entitled to vote
Any other meetingA majority in number of members entitled to vote, holding at least 95% of the paid-up voting capital

Explanatory statement (Section 102)

For every item of special business, the notice must include an explanatory statement disclosing the nature of the concern or interest of every director, manager and key managerial person, and their relatives, in that item, and any other information members need, so that members decide with full knowledge. A resolution passed on a misleading explanatory statement can be challenged.

Quorum (Section 103)

Quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present for a meeting to transact business. Unless the articles require more:

CompanyQuorum (members personally present)
Public company with up to 1,000 members5
Public company with more than 1,000 and up to 5,000 members15
Public company with more than 5,000 members30
Private company2
  • If no quorum within half an hour, the meeting stands adjourned to the same day next week at the same time and place, or to a date, time and place fixed by the Board; either way, members must get at least 3 days' notice of the adjourned meeting.
  • A meeting called by requisitionists is simply cancelled.
  • If again no quorum within half an hour at the adjourned meeting, the members present shall be the quorum.

Proxies (Section 105)

A member entitled to vote may appoint another person, who need not be a member, as his proxy to attend and vote for him. But:

  • a proxy has no right to speak and can vote only on a poll;
  • one person can be proxy for not more than 50 members, holding in total not more than 10% of the voting share capital;
  • the articles cannot require the proxy form to be lodged more than 48 hours before the meeting.

Voting

  • Show of hands (Section 107): the first method, unless a poll is demanded or voting is electronic. Each member present in person has one vote, however many shares he holds. The chairman's declaration, recorded in the minutes, is conclusive evidence of the result.
  • Poll (Section 109): the chairman may order one on his own, and must order one when demanded by members holding at least one tenth of the voting power or shares on which at least 5 lakh rupees has been paid up. Votes are counted in proportion to shareholding.
  • E-voting (Section 108 and Rules): listed companies and companies having 1,000 or more members must let their members vote by electronic means.
  • Postal ballot (Section 110): certain important matters, such as altering the objects clause or selling a whole undertaking, must be decided by postal ballot, members voting by post or electronically without a meeting. A company that must offer e-voting may instead decide them at a general meeting.
Case

In re Godrej Industries Limited: the company sought shareholders' approval of a scheme of amalgamation only through postal ballot and electronic voting, without holding an actual meeting. It finally withdrew the request, but Justice G.S. Patel of the Bombay High Court recorded reasons because the question was likely to recur. Held: the postal ballot provision cannot do away with the court-ordered meeting to approve such a scheme. A ballot allows only a yes or no on a fixed text; a real meeting lets shareholders ask questions, hear explanations and even propose changes, for example to the exchange ratio. Electronic voting can supplement the meeting but cannot replace it. Principle: where the law requires a meeting, the right to discuss is part of corporate democracy.

Resolutions (Section 114)

Ordinary resolutionSpecial resolution
Votes cast in favour (including the chairman's casting vote, if any) exceed the votes cast against.Needs three things: (1) the notice states the intention to propose it as a special resolution; (2) the notice is duly given; (3) votes in favour are at least three times the votes against, i.e. 75% of the votes cast.

Important matters, such as altering the memorandum or articles, reducing capital or shifting the registered office from one State to another, need a special resolution.

Special notice (Section 115)

  • The member intending to move the resolution gives notice to the company at least 14 days before the meeting; the company informs members at least 7 days before it.
  • The member, alone or with others, must hold at least 1% of the total voting power or shares with at least 5 lakh rupees paid up.
  • Required, for example, to remove a director or to appoint someone other than the retiring auditor.
Key point

Special notice concerns how a resolution is proposed; the resolution itself may be an ordinary resolution. Do not confuse special notice with a special resolution.

Minutes (Section 118)

Minutes of every general meeting and Board meeting must be prepared and signed within 30 days. They are evidence of the proceedings, and until the contrary is proved, the meeting is presumed to have been duly called and held.

Example

A public company with 800 members wants to alter its articles. The Board sends 21 clear days' notice stating that it is a special resolution, with an explanatory statement. Six members attend in person, so the quorum of five is met. The chairman orders a poll; 80% of the votes cast support the resolution, more than three times the votes against. The special resolution is passed and must be filed with the Registrar within 30 days under Section 117.

Meetings through Electronic Modes

General meetings: during the coronavirus pandemic, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs allowed general meetings through video conferencing or other audio-visual means; a series of circulars extended this, and the circular of September 2025 allows such meetings until further orders.

Board meetings stand on a firmer footing: Section 173 itself allows directors to participate through video conferencing or other audio-visual means that can record and recognise their participation, and such participation counts for the quorum.

Case

Achintya Kumar Barua v. Ranjit Barthakur: a director asked to attend Board meetings by video conferencing; the other directors objected that no one could verify who else might be with him at the remote end. The Tribunal allowed the request. Held: the Appellate Tribunal upheld it. The word "may" in Section 173 gives the director a choice, not the company a veto. A mere fear of misuse is not enough, because the Rules provide safeguards, such as a roll call at which each remote director states that no one else is attending with him. Principle: this statutory right cannot be denied on a bare apprehension.

Board Meetings

Section 173

  • First meeting: within 30 days of incorporation.
  • Thereafter: at least four meetings a year, with not more than 120 days between two consecutive meetings.
  • One Person Company, small company, dormant company and private start-up company: only one meeting in each half of the calendar year, with a gap of at least 90 days between them.
  • Notice: at least 7 days, in writing, to every director. A meeting may be called at shorter notice for urgent business, but then at least one independent director (if the company has one) must be present or must later ratify the decisions.

Quorum (Section 174)

One third of the total strength of the Board or two directors, whichever is higher.

Resolution by circulation (Section 175)

A resolution may be passed without a meeting if the draft is sent to all directors and approved by a majority of those entitled to vote; but if at least one third of the directors require it, the matter must be decided at a meeting.

Powers exercisable only at Board meetings (Section 179)

Some powers can be exercised only by resolutions passed at Board meetings, including making calls on shares, issuing securities, authorising a buy-back, approving financial statements and approving a merger.

Members meet only occasionally. The day-to-day running of the company is in the hands of the directors and the key managerial personnel.

Definitions

  • Director (Section 2(34)): a director appointed to the Board of a company.
  • Board of Directors (Section 2(10)): the collective body of the directors of the company.
Key point

Note the word "collective". The powers of management belong to the Board acting together, usually through resolutions, not to each director separately.

Who can be a director, and how many (Section 149)

Only an individual can be a director; a company or a firm cannot be appointed.

Type of companyMinimum directors
Public company3
Private company2
One Person Company1

The maximum is 15; a company may have more only by passing a special resolution.

Courts have described directors in different ways. Each description captures part of the truth; none is complete.

  1. Agents: when a director signs a contract for the company within his authority, the company is bound and he is not personally liable, unless he exceeds his authority.
  2. Trustees, in some respects: they hold the company's money and property that come into their hands, and the powers given to them, in trust for the company, and must use those powers only for the purposes for which they were given. Hence directors owe fiduciary duties, that is, duties of loyalty and good faith.
  3. Managing partners: they manage a business in which they may also have a stake.

A director holds a special office of trust. Under Section 2(59) he is an officer of the company, so he can be an officer in default, personally liable for breaches of the Act.

To whom are the duties owed?

To the company, not to individual shareholders.

Case

Percival v. Wright: Shareholders offered to sell their shares to the directors, who bought them. The directors were then secretly negotiating a sale of the whole undertaking at a much higher price (the negotiations later failed). The sellers sued to set aside the sale for non-disclosure of the negotiations. Held: the directors owed no fiduciary duty to individual shareholders; the sale was valid. Principle: directors owe their fiduciary duties to the company as a whole, not to individual shareholders.

The law has since moved on. Directors of a listed company who deal in its shares using unpublished price sensitive information commit insider trading, prohibited by the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 and punished under the SEBI Act.

Types of Directors

Executive and non-executive directors

Executive directorsNon-executive directors
Work full time and handle daily managementDo not work full time; attend Board meetings, bring outside experience and keep a watch on the management
  • Managing director (Section 2(54)): a director entrusted with substantial powers of management by the articles, an agreement, a resolution or the Board.
  • Whole-time director (Section 2(94)): a director in the whole-time employment of the company.

Directors defined by the way they come in (Section 161)

TypeAppointmentKey features
Additional directorBy the Board, if the articles allowHolds office until the next annual general meeting (AGM); if that meeting is delayed, his term ends on the date it was due
Alternate directorBy the Board, if the articles or the general meeting allowActs for a director who is away from India for at least three months
Director in a casual vacancyMembers must approve it at the next general meetingVacancy caused, for example, by death or resignation; holds office only for the remaining term of the director he replaces
Nominee directorBy the Board, subject to the articles, on nomination by an institution under a law or an agreement, or by the Government because of its shareholding in a Government companyProtects the interests of the nominating body
Note

Updated from the lecture: the lecture said a nominee director is appointed by an institution, an investor or the Government, under the articles, an agreement or a law. The correct position is that under Section 161(3) the Board appoints the nominee director, subject to the articles; the person is nominated by an institution under a law or an agreement, or by the Central or State Government because of its shareholding in a Government company. Source: Section 161 in The Companies Act, 2013.

Directors required by law

  • Resident director (Section 149): every company needs at least one director who has stayed in India for at least 182 days during the financial year.
  • Woman director: at least one in every listed company, and in every other public company with paid-up capital of ₹100 crore or more, or turnover of ₹300 crore or more.
  • Small shareholders' director (Section 151): a listed company may have one director elected by small shareholders, i.e. those holding shares of nominal value up to ₹20,000.

Appointment of Directors

  • First directors: named in the articles. If the articles are silent, the subscribers who are individuals are deemed to be the first directors until directors are duly appointed.
  • Later directors (Section 152): appointed by the members in general meeting. Before appointment a person must have a Director Identification Number (a unique number allotted by the Central Government), give his written consent to act, and declare that he is not disqualified.

Retirement by rotation (Section 152)

In public companies, unless the articles make all directors retire at every AGM:

  • at least two-thirds of the directors must be liable to retire by rotation;
  • at every AGM, one-third of these rotational directors retire, the longest in office first, and may be re-appointed;
  • independent directors are not counted for this purpose.

Purpose: shareholders get a regular chance to review the Board.

Separate resolutions (Section 162)

Members must vote on each director's appointment by a separate resolution. Resolutions may be combined only if the meeting first agrees to this without a single vote against. This stops the majority from forcing an unwanted director on members as part of a package.

Proportional representation (Section 163)

The articles may provide that at least two-thirds of the directors shall be elected by proportional representation, giving minority shareholders a chance to elect their own representatives.

Independent Directors

Why needed: in most Indian companies promoters hold a large block of shares and control the Board, and may run the company for their own benefit at the cost of minority shareholders. The law therefore requires directors with no material link to the company or its promoters, who can take an objective view.

Which companies must have them (Section 149(4))

  • Every listed public company: at least one-third of its directors.
  • A public company: at least two, if any one of three tests is met: paid-up capital of ₹10 crore or more; turnover of ₹100 crore or more; or outstanding loans, debentures and deposits totalling more than ₹50 crore.
  • Exempt: unlisted public companies that are joint ventures, wholly owned subsidiaries or dormant companies.

Who can be an independent director (Section 149(6))

  1. Not a managing director, whole-time director or nominee director.
  2. In the Board's opinion, a person of integrity with relevant expertise and experience.
  3. Not, now or earlier, a promoter of the company or of its holding, subsidiary or associate company, and not related to their promoters or directors.
  4. No significant money relationship with these companies or their promoters or directors in the current or two preceding financial years.
  5. Neither he nor his relatives hold positions or shareholdings that would compromise his independence.
Key point

An independent director must be independent in fact and in appearance.

Appointment, tenure and remuneration

  • Name must be in the data bank of eligible persons maintained by the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs.
  • Must pass an online proficiency self-assessment test, unless his experience exempts him.
  • Term: up to five consecutive years; re-appointment for a second term of up to five years by special resolution.
  • Maximum two consecutive terms. Then a three-year gap before re-appointment, during which he cannot be associated with the company in any other way.
  • Does not retire by rotation.
  • No stock options; may receive sitting fees, reimbursement of expenses and profit commission approved by the members.

Role: Code for Independent Directors (Schedule IV)

He must bring an objective view on strategy, performance and risk; protect the interests of all stakeholders, particularly minority shareholders; balance conflicting interests; attend meetings and seek clarification; report concerns about unethical behaviour or suspected fraud; and see that related party transactions are properly considered. Independent directors must meet at least once a year without the other directors and the management.

Limited liability (Section 149(12))

Independent directors, and non-executive directors who are not promoters or key managerial personnel, are liable only for acts of the company that occurred with their knowledge, attributable through Board processes, and with their consent or connivance, or where they did not act diligently. Without this protection no honest person would accept the risk of the office.

Powers of Directors

General powers of the Board (Section 179)

The Board may exercise all the powers and do all the acts the company is authorised to do, subject to the Act, the memorandum, the articles and regulations made by the company in general meeting. It cannot do anything that the Act or the articles require the company to do in general meeting.

Key point

Within its own sphere the Board is supreme. The general meeting cannot interfere with or overrule a decision the articles have left to the Board; unhappy members must alter the articles or remove the directors. No later regulation of the general meeting can invalidate an earlier act of the Board that was valid when done.

Powers needing members' special resolution (Section 180)

  • Selling or leasing the whole or substantially the whole of an undertaking (the most important).
  • Borrowing beyond the total of paid-up capital, free reserves and securities premium, leaving out temporary loans from the company's bankers in the ordinary course of business.

Private companies have been exempted from Section 180 since 2015.

Duties of Directors

The duties of directors are the most important part of company administration. Before 2013, they were found mainly in case law. Section 166 now puts them into the statute.

  1. Act in accordance with the articles.
  2. Act in good faith to promote the objects of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in the best interests of the company, its employees, the shareholders, the community and the protection of the environment.
  3. Discharge duties with due and reasonable care, skill and diligence, and exercise independent judgment.
  4. Not involve himself in a situation where he has a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or may conflict, with the company's interest (no conflict).
  5. Not achieve or attempt any undue gain or advantage for himself or his relatives, partners or associates; if he does, he must pay an amount equal to that gain to the company.
  6. Not assign his office; any assignment is void.

Penalty: fine of not less than ₹1 lakh, which may extend to ₹5 lakh.

Key point

The good faith duty is wide: the Board must think not only of shareholders but also of other stakeholders.

Example

Prince, a director, secretly owns the only suitable building near the company's site and persuades the Board to rent it as a warehouse at a high rent without disclosing his ownership. He has placed himself in a conflict, failed to disclose his interest and made an undue gain. The company can avoid the lease and recover his gain.

The strict no-profit rule

Case

Regal (Hastings) Limited v. Gulliver: Regal owned a cinema and wanted the leases of two more through a subsidiary. The landlord required the subsidiary to have paid-up capital of £5,000 or the directors to give personal guarantees. Regal could afford only £2,000, so some directors bought most of the remaining shares themselves. When the shares of both companies were later sold, they made a profit on their own shares; the new owners made Regal sue for it. Held (House of Lords): the directors must account, though they acted honestly and the company itself could not have bought the shares; they got the opportunity only because they were directors. Principle: a director who makes a profit by reason of his office must account for it to the company, unless the members approve it with full knowledge.

Case

Industrial Development Consultants Limited v. Cooley: Cooley, managing director of a construction consultancy company, sought a Gas Board contract for it. The Gas Board told him privately it would not deal with the company but might give the work to him personally. He told the company he was seriously ill, got released, and soon took the contract himself. Held: he must account for the whole profit, though the company would probably never have got the contract; the information reached him as managing director and he was bound to pass it on. Principle: a director must not divert to himself a business opportunity that comes to him as a director (the corporate opportunity doctrine).

Statutory control of conflicts

Disclosure of interest (Section 184)

  • Every director must disclose his concern or interest in other companies, firms and bodies at the first Board meeting he attends, every year, and whenever it changes.
  • If interested in a proposed contract, he must disclose the nature of his interest at the Board meeting where it is discussed and must not take part in that meeting.
  • A contract made without such disclosure is voidable at the option of the company.

Related party transactions (Section 188)

  • Covers, for example, sale or purchase of goods, property or services between the company and its directors, their relatives, or firms and companies in which they are interested.
  • Needs Board consent and, above prescribed limits, prior approval of members by ordinary resolution. A member who is a related party cannot vote on it (private companies exempt from this rule).
  • Exempt: transactions in the ordinary course of business and at arm's length, i.e. on the same terms the company would give an unrelated party.
  • Without the required approval and not ratified within three months, the transaction is voidable at the option of the Board or the members, and the director concerned must make good any loss to the company.

Loans to directors (Section 185)

Restricts loans by a company to its directors and to persons in whom they are interested.

Liability of Directors

Liable toWhen
The companyBreach of duties; secret profits; company money applied to ultra vires purposes. In a winding up, under Section 340, the Tribunal may make him repay or restore misapplied money or property, or pay compensation for misfeasance or breach of trust.
OutsidersContracting without authority; signing a misleading prospectus; taking part in fraudulent trading.
Penalties and punishment under the ActWhen he is an officer in default.

But he is not automatically liable for every wrong of the company.

Case

Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi: A guest at the Hyatt Regency, Delhi (owned by a listed company) went onto a dark terrace, climbed a low parapet wall to smoke, fell and was seriously injured. The police filed a chargesheet for endangering life by a rash or negligent act and causing grievous hurt against the company, its managing director Shiv Kumar Jatia, its general manager and some staff. The Delhi High Court refused to quash the case against the managing director, and he appealed to the Supreme Court. Held (Supreme Court, Justice R. Subhash Reddy): appeal allowed. Following the Sunil Bharti Mittal case (see the alter ego doctrine), there is no vicarious criminal liability unless a statute specifically provides for it; chairing meetings and taking decisions as managing director did not link him with the negligence and criminal intent alleged. Principle: a director is criminally liable for an offence committed in the course of the company's business only if his own active role with criminal intent is shown, or the statute itself makes him liable.

Disqualification and Vacation of Office

Personal disqualifications (Section 164(1))

  1. Of unsound mind and so declared by a court.
  2. Undischarged insolvent, or application to be declared insolvent pending.
  3. Convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for at least six months, until five years from the end of the sentence; if sentenced to seven years or more, never again a director of any company.
  4. Disqualified by an order of a court or the Tribunal.
  5. Has not paid a call on his shares for six months.
  6. Convicted of an offence relating to related party transactions in the last five years.
  7. Has no Director Identification Number.
  8. Holds more directorships than the law allows.

Directors of defaulting companies (Section 164(2))

A person who is or has been a director of a defaulting company is disqualified for five years from re-appointment in that company or appointment in any other company. A company is defaulting if it has:

  • not filed its financial statements or annual returns for three continuous financial years; or
  • failed for one year or more to repay deposits, redeem debentures, pay interest on them, or pay a declared dividend.

It punishes sitting on the Board of a company that ignores its basic duties.

Limit on directorships (Section 165)

Not more than 20 companies at the same time, of which not more than 10 may be public companies.

Vacation of office (Section 167)

The office becomes vacant automatically if the director incurs a disqualification; absents himself from all Board meetings held during twelve months, with or without leave; fails to disclose his interest in contracts; or is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for at least six months.

Resignation (Section 168)

By written notice to the company, effective from the date the company receives it or a later date he specifies. He remains liable for offences committed while in office.

Removal of Directors

Under Section 169, a company may remove a director before his term ends by ordinary resolution, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The articles or an agreement cannot take this power away.

Safeguards for the director

  1. Special notice is required for the resolution.
  2. He must be sent a copy of the notice and has a right to be heard at the meeting.
  3. He may make a written representation and ask that it be sent to every member, or read out at the meeting if it arrives too late.

Exceptions and consequences

  • Directors appointed by the Tribunal under Section 242, and directors elected by proportional representation, cannot be removed this way.
  • An independent director re-appointed for a second term can be removed only by special resolution.
  • A removed director cannot be re-appointed by the Board.
  • Removal does not take away any right to compensation for loss of office under his contract.

Removal through the back door

Courts closely watch attempts by those in control to remove a director by misusing the rule on vacation of office for absence.

Case

Sanjeev Kothari v. Vasant Kumar Chordia: Two families jointly promoted a private company. After a falling out, the managing family treated a director from the other family as having vacated office for missing three consecutive Board meetings (the rule under the old Act). The notices had been sent only under a certificate of posting, though he had asked for registered post. Held (Company Law Board): a certificate of posting was not conclusive proof that the notices reached him; his office was not vacated and he was reinstated as a director. Principle: a certificate of posting does not conclusively prove that notices of Board meetings reached a director, so his office cannot be treated as vacated for absence on that basis.

Case

Belfin Spa v. Cima Shyam Springs Private Limited: The Indian promoters of a joint venture company recorded that two Italian directors had vacated office for missing three consecutive Board meetings. Held (Appellate Tribunal): this could not stand, as the company never proved service of notices of those meetings. They were treated as continuing directors; share allotments that had reduced the Italian partner from majority to minority were set aside; and since the sides could no longer work together, a buy-out was directed at a value fixed by independent valuation. Principle: automatic vacation of office depends on proper notice of the meetings; a technical rule cannot be used to remove an inconvenient director.

Key Managerial Personnel

Section 2(51) defines key managerial personnel (KMP) as:

  • the Chief Executive Officer, or the managing director, or the manager;
  • the company secretary;
  • the whole-time director;
  • the Chief Financial Officer;
  • any officer not more than one level below the directors, in whole-time employment, designated as KMP by the Board; and
  • any other officer prescribed.
Company (Section 203 and the Rules)Whole-time KMP required
Every listed company, and every other public company with paid-up capital of ₹10 crore or moreManaging director or Chief Executive Officer or manager (in their absence, a whole-time director), plus a company secretary and a Chief Financial Officer
Private company with paid-up capital of ₹10 crore or moreA whole-time company secretary
  • A vacancy must be filled within six months.
  • KMP can be officers in default, so they share personal liability for breaches of the Act.
  • Section 197: total managerial remuneration of a public company cannot normally exceed 11 per cent of net profits, unless the members approve more by special resolution.

Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement: Majority Rule and Minority Rights

The majority controls the general meeting and chooses the Board. The question is what the minority can do when the majority, or the directors it chooses, use that power unfairly.

A company runs on majority rule: members decide by ordinary or special resolutions, and the majority usually elects the Board. A company with thousands of members cannot work if every member can block every decision. By joining, a member accepts the will of the majority expressed in the manner laid down by the articles and the Act.

Case

Foss v. Harbottle (foundation of majority rule): A company was formed to buy land near Manchester and develop it as a park. Two shareholders, Foss and Turton, sued the directors, including Harbottle, alleging that they had sold their own land to the company at an excessive price and misapplied its property. Held: suit dismissed. Any wrongs were done to the company, so the company was the proper person to sue; and since the majority could decide whether to sue, or even approve what was done, the court would not interfere at a minority's request. Principle: for a wrong done to the company, the company is the proper plaintiff, and the court will not interfere at the instance of a minority in matters the majority can decide or ratify.

Two rules from the case

  1. Proper plaintiff rule: for a wrong done to the company, the company alone is the proper plaintiff.
  2. Rule of internal management: the court will not interfere in matters that the majority can lawfully decide or ratify.

Reasons for the rule

  • Respects the separate personality of the company.
  • Prevents a flood of suits by individual shareholders.
  • Avoids useless litigation where the majority would ratify anyway.
  • Keeps courts out of business decisions.

Exceptions to the Rule in Foss v. Harbottle

Without exceptions the minority would have no protection, so the courts allow an individual member to sue in these cases:

1. Ultra vires or illegal acts

No majority can ratify them, so any member may sue to restrain them.

2. Special majority required but simple majority used

Case

Edwards v. Halliwell: Trade union rules allowed members' contributions to be increased only after a ballot approving it by a two-thirds majority. A delegate meeting raised them without a ballot. Two members sued. Held (Court of Appeal): they could sue; otherwise a simple majority could defeat the special majority requirement by refusing to let the union sue. The members were also enforcing their own personal rights, being made to pay more under an invalid decision. Principle: where the constitution requires a special majority, a simple majority cannot use Foss v. Harbottle to escape it.

3. Infringement of personal rights

E.g. the right to vote, to receive a declared dividend, or to have a transfer registered. The member sues for himself, not for the company.

4. Fraud on the minority by wrongdoers in control

The most important exception. If those in control take the company's money, property or opportunities for themselves, the company will never sue them, so a minority shareholder may bring a derivative action.

Key point

Derivative action: the member does not sue for his own right but on behalf of the company, for a right belonging to the company; anything recovered goes to the company.

Case

Prudential Assurance Company Limited v. Newman Industries Limited: Prudential, a minority shareholder in Newman Industries, alleged that two Newman directors, connected with another company, had by a misleading circular induced Newman's shareholders to approve buying that company's assets at an inflated price. Prudential sued in its own right and derivatively for Newman. Held (Court of Appeal): (1) a shareholder cannot recover, as personal loss, a fall in the value of his shares that merely reflects the company's loss; only the company can recover it (the rule against reflective loss); (2) before a derivative action goes to full trial, the court should decide as a preliminary issue whether the plaintiff has shown a prima facie case that the company is entitled to relief and that the action falls within an exception, including that the wrongdoers are in control. Principle: a minority shareholder cannot sue in his own name for the company's loss, and a derivative action must first pass this preliminary test.

Classification of shareholder remedies

RemedyNature
Personal actionProtects the member's own rights
Derivative actionEnforces the rights of the company
Representative actionBy some members on behalf of themselves and all others in the same position
Statutory remediesApplication for relief against oppression and mismanagement; class action; in some cases a winding up petition
Key point

Indian courts follow Foss v. Harbottle and its exceptions, but in India the real protection of the minority is statutory: Sections 241 to 246 of the Act.

Oppression and Mismanagement: Section 241

A member may apply to the Tribunal where:

  1. the company's affairs have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or to the interests of the company, or prejudicial or oppressive to him or any other members; or
  2. a material change has taken place in the management or control of the company (for example in its Board or the ownership of its shares), and he shows that, because of it, the affairs are likely to be conducted in a prejudicial manner.

The Central Government may also apply if it believes the affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest.

Meaning of oppression

The Act does not define oppression; the courts have explained it.

Case

Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Limited (leading case): Kalinga Tubes was formed by two groups holding equal shares. In 1954 Jain, not then a member, made a private agreement with them: fresh shares would be issued so his group equalled each of the others, the three groups would have equal Board seats, and he would be chairman. The agreement was never written into the articles and the company was not a party. When relations broke down, the Board controlled by the other two groups issued new shares to outsiders instead, reducing Jain's share. He alleged oppression and mismanagement. Held (Supreme Court, Justice K.N. Wanchoo): appeals dismissed. It is not enough that winding up would be just and equitable, nor is a mere loss of confidence between groups enough. There must be a continuous course of conduct, up to the date of the petition, that is burdensome, harsh and wrongful and shows a lack of probity or fair dealing towards the member in the matter of his rights as a shareholder. The agreement did not bind the company, and the shares went to genuine outsiders to meet a real need for capital, so there was no oppression. Principle: oppression means a continuing course of unfair, harsh and wrongful conduct by the majority, not a mere breach of a private understanding or a loss of mutual confidence.

Mismanagement

OppressionMismanagement
Unfairness to membersHarm to the company: the way the company itself is run
Continuing burdensome, harsh and wrongful conduct towards members in their rights as shareholdersE.g. continued siphoning of funds, destruction of the business, serious violations of law, a deadlock that paralyses the company

A single petition often alleges both.

Who May Apply: Section 244

CompanyEligible applicants
With share capitalAt least 100 members or one-tenth of total members, whichever is less; or members holding at least one-tenth of the issued share capital, provided all calls on their shares are paid
Without share capitalAt least one-fifth of total members

The Tribunal may waive any of these requirements, so that even a smaller minority can apply in a deserving case.

Case

Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. A. Nageswara Rao (early Supreme Court case on mismanagement under the Act of 1913): A shareholder, with the written consent of the required number of members, complained to the Andhra High Court of gross mismanagement: the company owed large sums to the Government for electricity, and its vice chairman allegedly misappropriated funds. The High Court found the charges proved and appointed two administrators to run the company for six months in place of the directors. Before the Supreme Court the company argued that some consenting members had later withdrawn consent, so the application failed. Held (Supreme Court, Justice Venkatarama Ayyar): the argument was rejected. Validity of the application is judged on the facts when it was presented; later withdrawal of consent does not destroy it. The just and equitable ground must not be read narrowly, and once a case for winding up is made out, appointing administrators is not improper interference in internal management. Principle: consent of the required members is tested on the date of the application, and the court has wide powers to protect a mismanaged company.

Powers of the Tribunal: Section 242

Two conditions

  1. The company's affairs have been conducted in a manner prejudicial or oppressive; and
  2. winding up would unfairly prejudice the members, although the facts would otherwise justify winding up on the just and equitable ground.

If both are met, the Tribunal may make any order it thinks fit to end the matters complained of.

Illustrative orders

  • Regulate the future conduct of the company's affairs.
  • Order purchase of some members' shares by other members or by the company, with consequent reduction of capital.
  • Restrict transfer or allotment of shares.
  • Terminate, set aside or modify agreements between the company and its managing director, directors or manager.
  • Set aside certain transfers of property made within three months before the application.
  • Remove the managing director, manager or any director, and recover undue gains made by them.
  • Appoint directors to report to the Tribunal; impose costs; make any other just and equitable provision.
  • Pass interim orders while the case is pending.
Example

Prince and Farhan hold 60 per cent of a private company and Zoya holds 40 per cent. They stop calling meetings, remove Zoya from the Board without notice, issue fresh shares only to themselves at a low price to reduce her holding, and pay themselves huge salaries while declaring no dividend. This continuing conduct is harsh, wrongful and lacking in probity. Zoya holds more than one-tenth of the issued capital, so she can apply under Section 241. The Tribunal may cancel the allotment, regulate the remuneration, or order Prince and Farhan to buy her shares at a fair value.

Leading Cases on Oppression and Mismanagement

The Tata Sons and Mistry dispute

Case

Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Cyrus Investments Private Limited (decided with the appeals of Tata Sons; the most important modern case): The Shapoorji Pallonji group held about 18 per cent of the shares of Tata Sons, whose majority shares are held by the Tata group's charitable trusts. Cyrus Mistry, from that group, became Executive Chairman in 2012. The Board removed him as Executive Chairman in October 2016, and the shareholders removed him as a director in February 2017. Two group investment companies holding only about 2 per cent of the total issued share capital alleged oppression and mismanagement. Not meeting the one-tenth requirement of Section 244, they needed a waiver: the Tribunal refused it, but the Appellate Tribunal granted it, which shows how the power of waiver works. The Tribunal then dismissed the petition on merits. In December 2019 the Appellate Tribunal reversed: it declared the removal illegal and ordered him to be restored as Executive Chairman, restrained the company (except in exceptional cases) from using an article allowing it to require a member to sell his shares, and held the recording of Tata Sons as a private company illegal.

Held (Supreme Court, Chief Justice S.A. Bobde): the Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside.

  1. Removal of a person from the post of Executive Chairman cannot be called oppressive or prejudicial.
  2. Relief under Section 242 needs a finding that the facts would justify winding up on the just and equitable ground; no such case existed.
  3. The Appellate Tribunal could not order reinstatement, which had not been properly sought, especially when his term had already ended.
  4. The article allowing the company to require a member to sell his shares, and the special voting rights of the trust-nominated directors, were not oppressive. A minority shareholder has no right to proportional representation on the Board unless the articles provide for it.
  5. The recording of Tata Sons as a private company was valid.

The value of the shares, if the group wished to exit, was left to the parties. Principle: removal of a person from an office is not, by itself, oppression; the Tribunal must find conduct that is burdensome, harsh and wrongful towards members, and facts that would justify winding up on the just and equitable ground.

Family companies

Case

Dr. K. Balasundaram v. G.K. Alloy Steels Private Limited: A family company in serious financial trouble, facing recovery proceedings by lenders, sold part of its land (some to a relative of a director) without a general meeting, and later made a joint development agreement with a builder. A son of the founder, a minority shareholder, alleged oppression and mismanagement. The Company Law Board rejected almost all complaints but, finding the land sold below value, directed the directors to pay ₹20 lakh to the company. Both sides appealed. Held (Madras High Court, Justice V. Ramasubramanian): both appeals dismissed. Under the old Act a private company did not need a general meeting's consent to sell its property, and sales in a financial crisis without proof of fraud were not oppression. The order against the directors was not strictly in accordance with law but was left undisturbed as an equitable balance in what was really a family dispute. In a family company, utmost good faith and fair play are absolutely essential. Principle: isolated business decisions taken in genuine difficulty are not oppression, and courts decide family company disputes with an eye to fairness.

Nature of the company

Case

Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v. Gharda Chemicals Limited: Gharda Chemicals began as a private company whose articles gave members a right of pre-emption (a first right to buy shares a member wishes to sell). Under the old Act it later became a deemed public company because of its large turnover. On reports that the majority shareholder planned to sell, minority shareholders complained that their pre-emption right was being ignored. The Company Law Board and the Bombay High Court held that the company had become an ordinary public company, so the transfer restriction no longer applied. Held (Supreme Court, Justice J. Chelameswar): appeal allowed. The category of deemed public companies, which the court called hybrid companies, had not been wholly abolished by the amendment of 2000, so the company had not lost its private character merely for that reason, and its pre-emption article was not destroyed on that ground. One remaining question of fact was sent back to the High Court. Principle: restrictions on transfer in the articles, which form a contract among the members, are not lightly taken away by later changes in the classification of a company.

Class action (Section 245)

Section 245, in force from 2016, provides a newer remedy: the class action. It is needed because a single small shareholder cannot afford to fight a large company, but thousands of affected shareholders together can.

Key point

Class action: a single case brought by a group of members or depositors on behalf of the whole class of persons affected in the same way.

Ground and orders sought

Members or depositors who believe the company's affairs are being conducted prejudicially to the interests of the company or its members or depositors may ask the Tribunal to:

  • restrain an act ultra vires the memorandum or articles, or a breach of them;
  • declare void a resolution altering the memorandum or articles passed by suppressing or misstating material facts to members or depositors;
  • restrain acts contrary to the Act or to members' resolutions;
  • award damages or compensation against the company or its directors (fraudulent, unlawful or wrongful act), the auditors (misleading audit report), and experts, advisers and consultants (misleading statements).

Who may apply (fixed by the Rules)

ApplicantsMinimum requirement
Members of a company with share capitalAt least 100 members or 5% of total members, whichever is less; or members holding at least 5% of the issued share capital (unlisted company) or 2% (listed company)
DepositorsAt least 100 depositors or 5% of all depositors, whichever is less; or depositors to whom the company owes at least 5% of its total deposits

The Tribunal considers the members' good faith and the views of other members. The order binds the company and all its members and depositors. Banking companies are excluded.

Protection of minority shareholders

Examiners often ask for these protections together.

ProtectionRule
Special resolutionImportant decisions need a special resolution, which a minority holding more than 25% of the votes can block.
Variation of class rights (Section 48)Needs the consent of three-fourths of the class; dissenting holders of at least 10% of the class can apply to the Tribunal.
Further issue (Section 62)Must first be offered to existing shareholders.
Proportional representation (Section 163)The articles may provide for it on the Board.
Small shareholders' director (Section 151)A listed company may have a director elected by small shareholders.
Independent directorsWatch over the interests of the minority.
Related party transactions (Section 188)Related parties cannot vote on approving their own transactions.
Investigation (Section 213)Members may apply to the Tribunal for an investigation into the company's affairs.
RemediesRelief against oppression and mismanagement; class action; winding up on the just and equitable ground.

Meaning of winding up

Unit Six deals with winding up. Company law begins with the birth of a company and ends with its death.

Key point

Winding up is the process by which the life of a company is brought to an end. Its assets are collected and realised, its debts are paid, and any surplus is distributed among its members according to their rights. At the end, the company is dissolved.

The company does not die when winding up begins. It still exists as a legal person, though its powers pass to a liquidator.

ConceptMeaning
Winding upThe process.
DissolutionThe end of the legal existence of the company, which follows the winding up.
Striking off (Section 248)A separate, simpler route: the Registrar removes the company's name from the register, for example if it has not started business within a year of incorporation, or has done no business for two financial years without applying to become a dormant company. A company may also itself apply to be struck off after paying off all its liabilities.
Key point

Winding up is not the same as insolvency. Even a solvent company can be wound up, for example on the just and equitable ground.

Modes of winding up under the present law

Before 2016, a company could be wound up in three ways:

  • by the court;
  • voluntarily, by its members or creditors;
  • voluntarily, under the supervision of the court.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 changed this completely:

  • A company that cannot pay its debts is now dealt with under the Code. A creditor, or the company itself, may start a corporate insolvency resolution process. It first tries to rescue the company through a resolution plan; only if that fails does the company go into liquidation.
  • Voluntary liquidation of a solvent company is now governed by Section 59 of the Code.
  • The main mode left under the Companies Act is winding up by the Tribunal under Section 270, on the grounds listed in Section 271.

Grounds for winding up by the Tribunal (Section 271)

  1. The company has passed a special resolution to be wound up by the Tribunal.
  2. The company has acted against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
  3. On an application by the Registrar or a person authorised by the Central Government, the Tribunal finds it proper to wind up the company because its affairs were conducted fraudulently, or it was formed for a fraudulent and unlawful purpose, or those who formed or managed it were guilty of fraud, misfeasance or misconduct.
  4. The company has not filed its financial statements or annual returns for the last five consecutive financial years.
  5. The Tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.

Inability to pay debts: removed in 2016

Inability to pay debts, once the most common ground, was removed in 2016 because it now belongs to the Code. Under the old law, a creditor's petition failed if the company raised a genuine dispute about the debt.

Case

Birla Corporation Limited v. Mahabir Prasad Sharma (Calcutta High Court): the company withheld a retired employee's pension under a scheme he had opted for, its only real reason being its separate suit against him claiming damages. Held: not a genuine defence; pension cannot be withheld unless the company's rules or articles allow it, and no such rule was shown. The petition was admitted for the part of the pension not time-barred, and the company was given a short time to pay in instalments. Principle: a company cannot escape a clear debt by raising a speculative cross-claim.

A similar idea, that only a genuine pre-existing dispute can defeat a creditor, applies today when an operational creditor starts insolvency proceedings under the Code.

Before 2016, creditors often used winding up petitions to recover their dues, and courts treated winding up as a last resort.

Case

In re Gladstone Engineering Limited (Calcutta High Court): after a creditor's petition was admitted, the company paid part of the debt and undertook to pay the rest in monthly instalments, backed by post-dated cheques. Held: if the amounts were paid on time, the petition would remain permanently stayed. The company was never wound up, and the petition was dismissed years later when no one pursued it. Principle: a court may hold back winding up while the company pays its debt.

The just and equitable ground

This is the widest ground. It covers situations where it would be unfair to keep the company alive, such as:

  • complete deadlock in management;
  • loss of the main object for which the company was formed;
  • a small private company run like a partnership in which mutual trust has broken down;
  • a company run oppressively against the minority.

The Tribunal uses it with caution, because winding up destroys a running business. If another remedy is available, such as relief against oppression under Section 241, and the petitioners unreasonably ignore it, the Tribunal may refuse to wind up under Section 273.

Case

Majestic Infracon Private Limited v. Etisalat Mauritius Limited (Bombay High Court): Etisalat DB Telecom, a foreign-Indian joint venture for mobile services, lost its business when the Supreme Court cancelled its licences in 2012 in the spectrum allocation case; its Board deadlocked when the Indian shareholder withdrew its nominee directors. The foreign shareholder petitioned for winding up on the just and equitable ground. Held: petition admitted, as the company had lost its substratum (the very foundation of its business) and the deadlock was genuine; a separate suit for damages was not an alternative remedy. A Division Bench upheld the admission, and in 2015 the company was finally ordered to be wound up. Principle: loss of substratum together with a genuine deadlock makes it just and equitable to wind up a company.

Who may petition (Section 272)

  • The company itself, with a statement of its affairs.
  • Any contributory.
  • The Registrar, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
  • Any person authorised by the Central Government.
  • The Central or a State Government, where the company has acted against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
Note

Updated from the lecture: the lecture said the Government may petition only where the company has acted against the sovereignty, integrity or security of India. The correct position is that the Central or a State Government may petition on the whole of this ground in Section 271, which also covers friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency and morality. Source: The Companies Act, 2013 (Sections 271 and 272).

Key point

Contributory: a person liable to contribute to the assets of the company if it is wound up; it includes a holder of fully paid shares.

Powers of the Tribunal

Under Section 273, the Tribunal may dismiss the petition, make an interim order, appoint a provisional liquidator, order winding up, or make any other order it thinks fit. It should pass its order within 90 days of the petition being presented.

Effect of a winding up order

  • The Tribunal informs the Registrar.
  • The order operates in favour of all creditors and contributories, as if they had all joined in the petition.
  • Section 279: no suit or legal proceeding can be started or continued against the company without the Tribunal's leave.
  • Section 334: after the winding up begins, any disposition of company property, transfer of its shares or change in the status of its members is void, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise.
  • Section 357: a winding up by the Tribunal is deemed to begin when the petition is presented.
Example

Because of Sections 357 and 334, a director cannot quietly sell company assets between the petition and the winding up order.

The Company Liquidator and his work

  • Appointment (Section 275): the Tribunal appoints as Company Liquidator either the Official Liquidator or an insolvency professional registered under the Code; it may first appoint a provisional liquidator. The liquidator steps into the shoes of the Board.
  • Custody (Section 283): he takes custody of all the property, effects and actionable claims of the company. Promoters, directors and officers must cooperate with him.
  • Within 30 days, the directors must give him the books of account, audited up to the date of the order.
  • Report (Section 281): within 60 days of the order, he reports to the Tribunal on the assets and liabilities, debts due to the company, pending legal cases and the list of contributories, and whether any fraud was committed in promoting, forming or managing the company.

The liquidator's work has three stages.

Stage 1: Collection and realisation of assets

  • Section 290: he may carry on the business so far as necessary for its beneficial winding up, sell property, recover debts, raise money on the security of assets, and sue or defend in the company's name.
  • The list of contributories is settled; they must pay any amount unpaid on their shares. Property wrongly transferred can be recovered.
  • Fraudulent preference (Section 328): a transaction giving one creditor an unfair advantage over others within six months before the winding up application can be set aside.
  • Misfeasance (Section 340): directors and promoters who misapplied money can be made to repay it.
  • Fraudulent trading (Section 339): those who carried on business to defraud creditors can be made personally liable (see Unit One).

Stage 2: Proof and payment of liabilities

Creditors prove their debts before the liquidator. Under Section 324, all debts, present or future, certain or contingent, are admissible to proof. Order of payment:

  1. Section 326: workmen's dues first, before all other debts. A secured creditor who has realised its security ranks equally with them, but only for a limited part of its unpaid debt. Workmen's wages for the two years before the winding up order come even before secured creditors and must be paid within 30 days of the sale of the assets.
  2. Section 327 (preferential payments): these include revenues, taxes and cesses due to the Government that became payable in the twelve months before the relevant date (the date a provisional liquidator is first appointed or, if none, the date of the winding up order); employees' wages and salaries for up to four months; holiday remuneration; and dues to the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund. They rank equally among themselves.
  3. Ordinary unsecured creditors.
Note

Updated from the lecture: the lecture measured the twelve-month period for Government dues from the winding up. The correct position is that Section 327 measures it from the relevant date, which in a winding up by the Tribunal is the date of appointment of a provisional liquidator or, if none, the date of the winding up order (not the presentation of the petition, when the winding up is deemed to begin). Source: The Companies Act, 2013 (Section 327).

Stage 3: Distribution of remaining assets

The surplus goes to the members according to their rights: preference shareholders are repaid capital first, then equity shareholders, and any surplus is divided as the articles provide.

Waterfall under the Code (Section 53)

Sections 326 and 327 do not apply to a liquidation under the Code, where Section 53 of the Code lays down a different waterfall.

Winding up under the Companies Act (Sections 326, 327 and distribution)Liquidation under the Code (Section 53)
  1. Workmen's dues, with secured creditors' limited share
  2. Preferential payments, including Government dues
  3. Ordinary unsecured creditors
  4. Preference, then equity shareholders
  1. Costs of the insolvency process and liquidation
  2. Workmen's dues for 24 months and secured creditors who give up their security, ranking equally
  3. Other employees
  4. Unsecured financial creditors
  5. Government dues with the unpaid balance of secured creditors
  6. Remaining debts
  7. Preference, then equity shareholders
Key point

Government dues rank much lower under the Code than under the old order.

Dissolution

When the affairs of the company have been completely wound up, the Company Liquidator applies to the Tribunal under Section 302. The Tribunal orders the company dissolved, and from the date of that order it ceases to exist. Within 30 days a copy goes to the Registrar, who records the dissolution in the register.

Summary procedure (Section 361): a quicker liquidation for companies of the classes laid down in the Rules whose assets have a book value of up to one crore rupees. The Central Government orders it and appoints the Official Liquidator to conduct it.

From the High Courts to the Tribunal and the Code

Until 2016, winding up petitions were heard by the High Courts. Pending petitions were dealt with by Section 434 and the Rules on transfer of pending proceedings (2016):

Petition based on inability to pay debtsResult
Notice not yet served on the companyWent to the Tribunal; treated as an application under the Code
Notice servedStayed with the High Court

A proviso added to Section 434 in 2018 allows any party to a winding up proceeding pending in a High Court to apply for its transfer to the Tribunal, where it is dealt with as an insolvency case under the Code. Two Supreme Court decisions explained it.

Case

Kaledonia Jute and Fibres Private Limited v. Axis Nirman and Industries Limited (Supreme Court, Justice V. Ramasubramanian): the Allahabad High Court ordered winding up on one creditor's petition; after that creditor was paid, the order was kept in abeyance while the Official Liquidator held the assets for other unpaid creditors. Another creditor started insolvency proceedings before the Tribunal and sought a transfer, which the High Court refused. Held: appeal allowed. "Any party" in the proviso is not limited to the original petitioner, the company or the liquidator, because a winding up order operates for the benefit of all creditors. Principle: any creditor may seek a transfer, even after a winding up order; parallel proceedings in the High Court and under the Code would defeat the Code's purpose.

Case

Action Ispat and Power Private Limited v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited (Supreme Court, Justice R.F. Nariman): after a winding up order, the Official Liquidator had taken possession of the company's premises. The State Bank of India, owed a very large sum, started insolvency proceedings and sought a transfer. Held: transfer upheld, applying the test of the irreversible stage. Principle: so long as the liquidator has not actually sold the assets, or sold the company as a going concern, nothing irreversible has happened and the proceeding may be transferred. Only when it is impossible to set the clock back must the High Court complete the winding up.

Key point

The law now prefers resolution under the Code to liquidation, so a pending winding up may be sent to the Tribunal unless it has gone too far to be reversed.

Quick revision

Corporate Law runs from the birth of a company to its dissolution. Three habits for examination answers:

  • In every problem, first ask who the real party is — the company, its members, its directors or its creditors — because the company is a separate person.
  • Always name the section of the Companies Act, 2013, and support it with the leading case.
  • Whenever two concepts look similar, such as transfer and transmission, oppression and mismanagement, or winding up and dissolution, write their differences clearly, with an example.

Practise Company Law (Corporate Law) MCQs

24 questions. Every answer comes with an explanation and the legal provision behind it.

Practise now

Make this page yours

Sign in to save your reading progress and keep private notes and highlights. Free, and only you can see them.

Keep reading

Related notes

Company Law (Corporate Law) Complete notes

Corporate Law One Shot

The evolution of corporate law in India has been influenced significantly by British laws, evolving over time to regulate the rights, duties, and responsibilities of companies. Below is the development explained in a po…

113 min read

Company Law (Corporate Law) Case compilation

Corporate Law Case Law

Key Point: The case clarified that corporations are not "citizens" under the Indian Constitution.

18 min read

Judgments

Related case laws

Case law library

Salomon v. Salomon

House of Lords

The House of Lords held that a validly registered company is a separate legal person from its members, even when one person holds almost all its shares. So Aron Salomon was not personally liable for the company's debts, and as a secured debenture holder he was paid before the unsecured creditors. The case is the foundation of modern company law and the leading authority on corporate personality.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Foss v. Harbottle

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Two shareholders sued the directors of their company for selling their own land to the company at an excessive price and misapplying its property. The court dismissed the suit because a wrong done to the company must be remedied by the company itself, and the majority could decide whether to sue or could approve what had been done. The case is the foundation of the majority rule in company law and gave rise to the proper plaintiff rule and the rule of internal management.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Macaura

House of Lords

The House of Lords held that Macaura, who held almost all the shares of a company and was also its large unsecured creditor, had no insurable interest in timber owned by that company. The case matters because it shows clearly that the property of a company is not the property of its shareholders.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Gilford

Court of Appeal

Horne, a former managing director bound by a promise not to solicit his old employer's customers, set up a new company and solicited those customers through it. The Court of Appeal held that the new company was a mere cloak or sham formed to escape his promise, and granted an injunction against both Horne and the company. The case is a leading example of lifting the corporate veil where a company is used to escape a legal obligation.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Watch

Related lectures