Companies Act – Decision To Allot Additional Shares Cannot

Card image

Companies Act – Decision To Allot Additional Shares Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Because Promoters Have Also Benefited: Supreme Court

By Team EOS |

The Supreme Court has upheld the largely disproportionate allotment of rights share in favour of one group of shareholders of a private limited company, substantially increasing its shareholding percentage in the company over other group of shareholders.
The bench comprising
Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna
found that the increase in the appellant- H.M. Patel Group’s shareholding from 30.80% to 63.58% of the paid-up share capital of the private company, was the result of the other shareholder-group’s refusal to apply for the additional shares, despite being given the opportunity. Thus, the allotment of fresh shares could not be characterized as oppressive, the court ruled.

The court held that after the Board of Directors had resolved to allot additional shares to the existing shareholders in the ratio of 1:1, while also giving them the option to apply for more or lesser number of shares than they were entitled to, the members of the H.M. Patel Group had applied for a greater number of shares. The shareholders constituting the other shareholders’ group, however, did not apply for the same.

The court thus ruled that there was no defect in the allotment of additional shares after the authorized share capital of the company was increased by a resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Meeting of the shareholders. The top court thus set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) where it had ruled that the distribution of the additional shares was ‘defective’. The Tribunal had directed the allotment of additional shares to all the existing shareholders of the company in proportion to their shareholding.

The Apex Court noted that the members of the H.M. Patel Group were members of the Board of Directors at the time the decision to increase the authorized share capital and issue fresh shares was taken. It held that though Section 81(3) of Companies Act, 1956 expressly exempts a private limited company from the purview of Section 81, which deals with further issue of capital; however, notwithstanding the same, the conduct of the Directors is to be judged on a higher yardstick.

The court, however, remarked that the fact that the Directors may also benefit from a decision taken primarily with the intention to promote the interest of the Company, cannot vitiate the decision. Thus, even though the Directors who constituted the said shareholders’ group, benefited and made a gain from the implementation of a decision taken primarily with a view to safeguard the interest of the Company, it cannot by itself render the decision vulnerable to attack.
Source

Latest Supreme Court

Latest Posts

Card image

CJI DY Chandrachud Cautions About Artificial Intelligence; Says It Can Make Biased Decisions Based On Societal Prejudices

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachudrecently spoke on how no technology is neutral and how it can reflect human values when deployed in the real world. The CJI spoke on how one must ponder the human and societal values ...

Card image

Understanding Overseas Patients' Rights in India: A Guide for International Visitors

Introduction:India has emerged as a popular destination for medical tourism, attracting patients from across the globe seeking high-quality healthcare services at affordable costs. While the country offers world-class medical facilities and skilled healthcare professionals, it's essential for overseas patients to ...

Card image

Section 313 CrPC | 'Right To Remain Silent Not Be Used Against Accused' : Supreme Court Summarises 12 Principles

Recently, the Supreme Court, in a noteworthy judgment, while acquitting a woman accused of killing her own child and was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, also decided the question of what may be required of the convict ...

Card image

Maternity Benefits Must Be Granted Even If Period Of Benefit Overshoots Term Of Contractual Employment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday(17 Aug) held that maternity benefits have to be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of contractual employment. The court directed the ...

Card image

Delhi pollution: Supreme Court seeks report from Centre's air quality panel

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a report from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) on the steps being taken to control air pollution in and around Delhi. The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a report from the Commission ...

Card image

SC Criticises Trend Of Seeking Bail Under Guise Of Challenging Validity Of PMLA In Money Laundering Cases

Article 32 of the Constitution gives individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court if they feel their fundamental rights have been violated. Supreme Court on Tuesday deprecated the trend of the accused in money laundering cases using Article 32 ...

EOS Chambers of Law

Speak With Our
Experts Today!

Get a Appointment
EOS Chambers of Law