A PROJECT ON

PETITION UNDER SECTION 398 & 299 WITH RESPECT TO

SECTION 402 OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 FOR RELIEF AGAINST
MISMANAGEMENT
Mr. Md. Hadiur Rahaman
(Faculty of Drafting Pleading & Conveyancing)
SUBMITTED BY:
Vivek Rai
Roll no.-147
Semester-VIII
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
24/02/2014

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR (C.G.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On the completion of this project I find that there are many persons to whom I would like to
express my gratitude, since without their help and co-operation the success of this educative
endeavour would not have been possible.
I welcome this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to my teacher and guide Mr. Md. Hadiur
Rahaman, who has been a constant source of encouragement and guidance throughout the course of
this work.
I am grateful to the IT Staff for providing all necessary facilities for carrying out this work. Thanks
are also due to all members of the Library staff for their help and assistance at all times.
I am also grateful to all my friends and colleagues for being helpful in their differences and for their
constant support.
Vivek Rai
(Researcher)

OBJECTIVES

To file a petition under section 398 & 399 with respect to section 402 of companies act 1956
for relief against mismanagement.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted in this research work is based on SECONDARY sources of
information like books, journals, etc. The present research work contains a critical analysis and a
detailed study of the topic To file a petition under section 398 & 399 with respect to section 402
of companies act 1956 for relief against mismanagement.
This research work contains elaborated theoretical research, an overall study of the topic and in
depth and in depth web browsing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................5
WHAT CONSTITUTE OPRESSION AND MISMANAGEMENT .............................6
SCOPE OF SECTION 398 OF COMPANIES ACT 1956..............................7
POWERS OF COMPANY LAW BOARD...8
RULES AND PROCEDURE........................9
LIMITATIONS..............................10
PETITION APPLICATION..........................................................................................................12

Introduction

Companies act 1956, includes provisions to protect the interest of the minority shareholders,
the minority has been incapable or unwilling due to lack of time, recourse or capability- financial or
otherwise. This has resulted in the minority to either let the majority dominate and suppress them or
squeeze them out of the decision making process of the company and eventually the company. CA
2013 has sought to invariably provide for protection of minority shareholders rights and can be
regarded as a game changer in the tussle between the majority and minority shareholders. Various
provisions have been introduced in CA 2013 to essentially bridge the gap towards protection and
welfare of the minority shareholders under CA 1956.
Presently, 'minority shareholders' are not defined under any law, however, by virtue of Section 395
(Power to acquire shares of dissenting shareholders) and Section 399 (Right to apply for Oppression
and Mismanagement) of CA 1956, minority shareholders have been set out as ten percent (10%) of
shares or minimum hundred (100) shareholders, whichever is less, in companies with share capital;
and one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of its members, in case of companies without share capital. In
general terms, minority shareholding can be understood to mean holding such amount of shares
which does not confer control over the company or render the shareholder with having a
non-controlling interest in a company. CA 1956 provides for various provisions dealing with
situations wherein rights of minority shareholders are affected and the same can be divided into two
major heads, i.e., (a) oppression and mismanagement of the company; and (b) reconstruction and
amalgamation of companies.
Chapter VI of Companies Act, 1956 deals with oppression and mismanagement and contains
sections 397 to 409, important sections being 397, 398, 399, 402 and 403 of the Act. While section
399 deals with the issue of qualification for approaching the Board seeking relief under section
397/398, sections 397/398 deal with the issues as to what constitutes oppression and mismanagement
and the powers of the Board. While section 402 is specific to the powers of Company Law Board,
section 403 deals with the scope of passing interim orders by the Company Law Board pending a
main petition under section 397/398.
5

What constitutes oppression/mismanagement?

The term oppression under section 397 and can find so much narration and
precedents on what constitutes oppression. In view of number of precedents
and the law of precedents, a professional is often had to look at all the
judgments under section 397/398 of the Act in order to substantiate the
allegations or counter the Petition. Issue is not that much simple as wording
under section 397/398 and an order can not be passed in an application under
section 397/398 without a detailed probe and enquiry.
P. Punnaiah and others Vs. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. and others
1. The three appellants in this appeal are the share-holders of the first respondent-company, Jeypore
Sugar Company Limited. The Respondents are its DirectOrs. The first appellant's daughter Smt. V.
Rajeshwari also holds certain shares in the first respondent-company. She is married and has been
residing in U.S.A. since 1973. Before leaving for the U.S.A., she executed a General Power of
Attorney (G.P.A.) in favour of her father, the first appellant herein, on 29th November, 1973.
2. On October 25, 1978, the three appellants herein filed an application under Sections 397/398 in the
High Court of Orissa. To comply with the requirement of one-tenth share-holding, the first appellant
gave consent in writing for and on behalf of Smt. Rajeshwari as her G.P.A. holder. If the
share-holding of Rajeshwari is taken into account and she is deemed to have consented to the filing
of the said application, the requirements ofSection 399 are admittedly satisfied. The precise question
in this appeal is whether the consent given by her G.P.A. holder for and on her behalf -and not by her
personally - is a valid consent within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 399
3. As soon as the application under Sections 397/398 was filed by the appellants, some of the
respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that
it does not comply with the requirement of Section 399 inasmuch as the consent given by the first
appellant on behalf of and as the attorney of Smt. Rajeshwari, and not by herself personally, cannot
be treated as 'consent' within the meaning of Section 399(3). Both the Company Judge, and on appeal
6

the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, upheld the said objection and dismissed the application
on the said preliminary ground alone.

Scope of section 398 of The Companies Act:

There are many precedents on the object and the scope of section 397/398 of the Act. However, the
reference made by the Bombay High Court, in Mauli Chand Sharma and another Vs. Union of India
and others, (1977) 47 Com Cases 92 explains the object and the scope of provisions dealing with
oppression and mismanagement. The important portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
that chapter II of the Act, which includes section 255, deals with corporate management of the
company through directors in normal circumstances, while Chapter VI, which contains sections 397,
398 and 402, deals with emergent situations or extraordinary circumstances where the normal
corporate management has failed and has run into oppression or mismanagement and steps are
required to be taken to prevent oppression and/or mismanagement in the conduct of the affairs of the
company. In the context of this scheme having regard to the object that is sought to be achieved by
sections 397 and 398 read with sections 402, the powers of the court under the sections can not be
read as subject to the provisions contained in the other chapters which deal with normal corporate
management of a company. Further, an analysis of the sections contained in Chapter VI of the Act
will also indicate that the powers of the court under sections 397 and 398 read with section 402 can
not be read as being subject to the other provisions contained in sections dealing with usual corporate
management of a company in normal circumstances. The topic or subjects dealt with by sections 397
and 398 are such that it becomes impossible to read any such restriction or limitation on the powers
of the court acting under section 402. Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred on
the court under these sections, section 402 proceeds to indicate what types of orders the court could
pass. Under clause (a) of section 402, the courts order may provide for the regulation of the conduct
of the companys affairs in future and under clause (g) the courts order may provide for any other
matter for which in the opinion of the court it is just and equitable that provision should be made. An
examination of the aforesaid sections brings out two aspects; first, the very wide nature of the power
conferred on the court, and secondly, the object that is sought to be achieved by the exercise of such
7

power, with the result that the only limitation that could be impliedly read on the exercise of the
empower would be that nexus must exist between the order that may be passed thereunder and the
object sought to be achieved by those sections and beyond this limitation which arises by necessary
implication it is difficult to read any other restriction or limitation on the exercise of the courts
power. Further, section 397 and 398 are intended to avoid winding up of the company if possible and
keep it going while at the same time relieving in minority shareholders from acts of oppression and
mismanagement or preventing its affairs being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest
and, if that be the objective, the court must have power to interfere with the normal corporate
management of the company, and to supplant the entire corporate management, or rather,
mismanagement, by resorting to non-corporate management which may take the form of appointing
an administrator or a special officer or a committee of advisers, etc., who would be in charge of the
company.

Power of Company Law Board or the Tribunal while entertaining an application

under section 397/398 of the Act and the nature of powers :

We can find plethora of judgments on the powers of Company Law Board or the Tribunal under
section 397/398 of the Act. While the precedents refer the wording under section 397/398 of the Act
which confers widest powers on the Board, there exist complicated issues. Basically, the plain
reading of the provisions and the logical analysis makes it very clear that the powers exercised by the
Board under section 397/398 of the Act are preventive in nature. Then, what should a shareholder do
to get an illegality committed by the majority undone? Its a very very complicated issue and scope
of remedial measures under section 397/398 of the Act is interesting and the issue needs to be
addressed.

Rules & Procedures

Companies (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956

Rule 13. / Section 399 (4) - Prevention of oppression and mismanagement. (1) Every application under clause (4) of section 399 to the Central Government by any members of a
company who wish to be authorised to apply to the Company Law Board shall specify(a) the names and addresses of the applicants ;
(b) if the company has a share capital, the voting power held by each applicant ;
(c) the total number of applicants ;
(d) their total voting power ; and
(e) the reasons for making the application.
(2) The reasons given in pursuance of clause (e) of sub-rule (1) shall be precise and specific.
(3) Every such application shall be accompanied by such documentary evidence in support of the
statements made therein as are reasonably open to the applicants.
(4) Every such application shall be signed by the applicants and shall be verified by their affidavit
stating that paragraphs thereof are true to their knowledge and paragraphs to the best of their
information and belief.
(5) The Central Government may, before passing orders on the application, require the applicants or
any one or more of them, to produce such further documentary or other evidence as the Central
Government may consider necessary(a) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the truth of the allegations made in the application ; or
(b) for ascertaining any information which, in the opinion of the Central Government, is necessary
for the purpose of enabling it to pass orders on the application.

Cause of Action and Limitation to file a Petition under section 397/398 of

Companies Act, 1956

No lis lies when there is no live claim or the cause of action and it is settled legal principle. The
requirement of having a live claim for seeking relief is also been highlighted by the Honble Apex
Court while dealing with the scope of powers of Chief Justice under section 11 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Again, there were many judgments under SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the issue
of cause of action despite the specific provision in the Act that the borrower can approach the Debt
Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 if he has any grievance at the
Banks action. Thus, the issue of cause of action and law of limitation is very significant in any lis.
Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a remedy to the minority shareholders or the
shareholders qualifying under section 399 to approach the Company Law Board and the Company
Law Board has wide powers in passing orders in order to put an end to the matters complained of or
in order to regulate the affairs of the Company. While section 399 of Companies Act, 1956 deals
with the issue of qualification, section 397/398 itself speaks about cause of action and the issue of
limitation. Dealing with the issue of cause of action and law of limitation under section 397/398 of
Companies Act, 1956 is infact very complicated. It is settled that a minority shareholders can
question the harsh and burdensome acts of the majority in the Company. It is also settled that the
oppression or the mismanagement sought to be alleged should be a continuous one if the minority
should approach the Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. In
fact, the issue of cause of action and law of limitation can not be separated while dealing with the
law under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the issue of limitation has little
significance. The provisions of law of limitation will have no application to a petition under section
397/398 of Companies Act, 1956. Its all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the Case.
There are different views as to how section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 is to be interpreted
when it comes providing a remedy to the minority shareholders. There is a view that unless there
exists act which is harsh and burdensome in the company against the minority, minority is not
entitled for any relief under section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956. There is another view that even
if there is no oppression or mismanagement in the Company in stricto senso, the Company Law
Board can still pass appropriate orders under section 402 of the Act in order to regulate the affairs of
10

the Company and in order to put and end to the matters complained of. It is also settled that there can
not be any hard and fast rule while entertaining and passing appropriate orders in a petition by the
minority against the majority under section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956. Going by the
precedents and the complications in corporate affairs, it can be understood that an order of the
Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 should be reasonable,
towards the object of the chapter, in adherence to the principles of natural justice. This is a very
complicated proceeding and it acts as a sharp weapon in the hands of minority shareholders to protect
their interests and also the provisions of the chapter can conveniently be misused with ulterior
motive. Thus, the Company Law Board carries a greater responsibility while entertain petitions under
section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956. Coming back to the issue of cause of action and the
issues of limitation, the Honble High Court of Delhi, in Surinder Singh Bindra Vs. Hindustan
Fasteners (P) Limited, was pleased to observe as follows:
These can be looked into if they form part of a continuous process continuing up to the date of
petition showing that the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner stipulated in Ss. 397
and 398 of the Act. This, in fact, is the requirement of these provisions. Further, if the acts
complained of form part of the same transaction constituting oppression or mismanagement these
acts can also be looked into even if they occurred three years prior to the institution of the petition.
Same will be the case if the conduct arising from even a single wrongful act in a given case is such
that its effect will be a continuous course of oppression or mismanagement though the wrongful act
occurred three years earlier to the date of filing of the petition. It is something akin to the
terminology 'continuing cause of action'. Whether events complained of form part of continuous acts
or not or form part of the same transaction constituting oppression of mismanagement or effect of a
particular wrongful act is continuous course of oppression or mismanagement or the wrongful act is
stale or is an isolated event, would all be different questions to determine. To this extent, therefore,
the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition on the ground of limitation
is overruled. This exercise about the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the
application under Ss. 397 and 398 of the Act, would now appear to be academic as after the
Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988, applications under these sections lie before the Company Law
Board.

11

FORM NO. 43
[See rule 88] [HEADING AS IN FORM NO.1]
Company Petition No #01 of 2014
Vivek Rai Petitioner
Petition by minority shareholders under section 398
The petition of Vivek Rai, Patthalgaon, Dist. Jashpur Chhattisgarh, showeth as follows:

1. The address of the petitioner(s) for service of all notices, processes etc., is that of his (their)
advocate at Patthalgaon, Dist. Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Nirala & sons. Co. Ltd., (hereinafter called 'the company') was incorporated on 2012 under the
provisions of the (Companies Act, 1956).

3.The registered office of the company is situate at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4.The nominal capital of the company is Rs 50,00,000 divided into 25000 shares of Rs . 200 each.
The amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs35,000 .

5. The objects for which the company was established are as follows:
and other objects set forth in the memorandum of association of the company annexed hereto. 6.
[Here set out the facts showing that the petitioner(s) has (have) a right to apply under section 399(1)
or (4)].

12

7. [Here set out in numbered paragraphs the facts on which the petitioner(s) relies (rely) to show that
the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to a part of the members of
the company (including the petitioner(s).]
(Conclude as follows)

In these circumstances, the petitioner submits that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a
manner oppressive to a part of the members of the company [including the petitioner], and that while
it would be just and equitable that the company should be woundup, to do so would unfairly
prejudice the petitioner and that part of the members.
The petitioner, therefore, prays as follows:
1.(here set out the remedy sought)
2.Or, such other may be made in the premises as shall be just.
SCHEDULE
[Here enter the names and addresses of the members who have given their consent to the petition
being presented on their behalf, and where the company has a share capital. the number of shares
held by each of them and whether all the calls or other sums due on their shares have been paid, as
follows:]

13

Sr.No.

Name of Member

Address

No. of
shares
Held

Whether all calls other

sums due on shares.

1.

Naveen Nirala

Bilaspur, C.G.

20,000

aye

Advocate for the petitioneris). Petitioner(s) Note: Where the petition is presented on behalf of the
members set out in the schedule, the letter of consent given by them should be annexed to the
petition.

14