Prevention of operation and mismanagement
Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.
The Supreme Court in Daleant Carrington Investment (P) Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, held that increase of share capital of a company for the sole purpose of gaining control of the company, where the majority shareholder is reduced to minority , would amount to oppression. The director holds a fiduciary position and could not on his own issue shares to himself. In such cases the oppressor would not be given an opportunity to buy put the oppressed.
Prevention of oppression
Section 397(1) of the Companies Act provides that any member of a company who complains that the affair of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members may apply to the Tribunal for an order thus to protect his /her statutory rights.
Sub-section (2) of Section 397 lays down the circumstances under which the tribunal may grant relief under Section 397, if it is of opinion that :-
(a)the company’s affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members ; and
(b) to wind up the company would be unfairly and prejudicial to such member or members , but that otherwise the facts would justify the making of a winding up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the company should be wound.
The tribunal with the view to end the matters complained of, may make such order as it thinks fit.
Who can apply
Section 397 of the Companies Act states the members of a company shall have the right to apply under Section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act. According to Section 399 where the company is with the share capital, the application must be signed by at least 100 members of the company or by one tenth of the total number of its members, whichever is less, or by any member, or members holding one-tenth of the issued share capital of the company. Where the company is without share capital, the application has to be signed by one-fifth of the total number of its members. A single member cannot present a petition under section 397 of the Companies Act. The legal representative of a deceased member whose name is again on the register of members is entitled to petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.
Under Section 399(4) of the Companies Act, the Central Government if the circumstances exist authorizes any member or members of the company to apply to the tribunal and the requirement cited above, may be waived. The consent of the requisite no. of members is required at the time of filing the application and if some of the members withdraw their consent, it would in no way make any effect in the application. The other members can very well continue with the proceedings.
Conditions for Granting Reliefs
To obtain relief under section 397 the following conditions should be satisfied:-
1. There must be “oppression”- The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohan Lal Chandmall v. Punjab Co. Ltd has held that an attempt to deprive a member of his ordinary membership rights amounts to “oppression”. Imposing of more new and risky objects upon unwilling minority shareholders may in some circumstances amount to “oppression”.However, minor acts of mismanagement cannot be regarded as “oppression”. The Court will not allow that the remedy under Section 397 becomes a vexatious source of litigation. But an unreasonable refusal to accept a transfer of shares held as sufficient ground to pass an order under Section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956.Thus to constitute oppression there must be unfair abuse of the powers and impairments of the confidence on the part of the majority of shareholders.
2. Facts must justify winding up- It is well settled that the remedy of winding up is an extreme remedy. No relief of winding up can be granted on the ground that the directors of the company have misappropriated the company’s fund, as such act of the directors does not fall in the category of oppression or mismanagement.To obtain remedy under Section 397 of the Companies Act, the petitioner must show the existence of facts which would justify the winding up order on just and equitable ground.
3. The oppression must be continued in nature – It is settled position that a single act of oppression or mismanagement is sufficient to invoke Section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act. No relief under either of the section can be granted if the act complained of is a solitary action of the majority. Hence, an isolated action of oppression is not sufficient to obtain relief under Section 397 or 398 of the Act. Thus to prove oppression continuation of the past acts relating to the present acts is the relevant factor , otherwise a single act of oppression is not capable to yield relief.
4. The petitioners must show fairness in their conduct-It is settled legal principle that the person who seeks remedy must come with clean hands. The members complaining must show fairness in their conduct. For ex-Mere declaration of low dividend which does not affect the value of the shares of the petitioner ,was neither oppression nor mismanagement in the eyes of law.
5. Oppression and mismanagement should be specifically pleaded- It is settled law that , in case of oppression a member has to specifically plead on five facts:-
a) what is the alleged act of oppression ;
b) who committed the act of oppression;
c) how it is oppressive;
d) whether it is in the affairs of the company;
e) and whether the company is a party to the commission of the act of oppression.
Prevention of Mismanagement
The present Company Act does provide the definition of the expression ‘mismanagement’. When the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company or its members or against the public interest, it amounts to mismanagement.
Section 398(1) of the Companies act provides that any members of a company who complain:-
that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; or a material change has taken place in the management or control of the company, whether by an alteration in its Board of directors, or manager or in the ownership of the company's shares, or if it has no share capital, in its membership, or in any other manner whatsoever, and that by reason of such change, it is likely that the affairs of the company will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; may apply to the Company Law Board for an order of relief provided such members have a right so to apply as given below.
If, on any such application, the Company Law Board is of opinion that the affairs of the company are being conducted as aforesaid or that by reason of any material change as aforesaid in the management or control of the company, it is likely that the affairs of the company will be conducted as aforesaid, the court may, with a view to bringing to an end or preventing the matters complained of or apprehended, make such order as it thinks fit.
Right to Complain mismanagement-
1. The following members of a company shall have the right to apply as above:-
a) in the case of a company having a share capital, not less than one hundred members of the company or not less than one tenth of the total number of its members, whichever is less, or any member or members holding not less than one-tenth of the issued share capital of the company, provided that the applicant or applicants have paid all calls and other sums due on their shares;
b) in the case of a company not having a share capital, not less than one-fifth of the total number of its members.
2. Where any share or shares are held by two or more persons jointly, they shall be counted only as one number.
3. Where any members of a company, are entitled to make an application, any one or more of them having obtained the consent in writing of the rest, may make the application on behalf and for the benefit of all of them.
4. The Central Government may, if in its opinion circumstances exist which make it just and equitable so to do, authorize any member or members of the company to apply to the Company Law Board, notwithstanding that the above requirements for application are not fulfilled.
5.The Central Government may, before authorizing any member or members as aforesaid, require such member or members to give security for such amount as the Central Government may deem reasonable, for the payment of any costs which the Court dealing with the application may order such member or members to pay to any other person or persons who are parties to the application.
6. If the managing director or any other director, or the manager, of a company or any other person, who has not been impleaded as a respondent to any application applies to be added as a respondent thereto, the Company Law Board may, if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for doing so, direct that he may be added as a respondent accordingly.
Notice to be given to Central Government of application
The Company Law Board must give notice of every application made to it as above to the Central government, and shall take into consideration the representations, if any, made to it by that Government before passing a final order.
Right of Central Government to apply
The Central Government may itself apply to the Company law Board for an order, or because an application to be made to the Company Law Board for such an order by any person authorized be it in this behalf.
Powers of Tribunal
Under Section 402 of the Companies Act ,1956 the powers of the Tribunal under Sections 397 and 398 are very wide .These are :-
1. the regulation of the conduct of the company's affairs in future;
2. the purchase of the shares or interests of any members of the company by other members thereof or by the company;
3. in the case of a purchase of its shares by the company as aforesaid, the consequent reduction of its share capital;
4.the termination, setting aside or modification of any agreement, howsoever arrived at, between the company on the one hand, and any of the following persons, on the other namely:-
a) the managing director;
b) any other director;
c) the manager;
Upon such terms and conditions as may, in the opinion of the Company Law Board, be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case ;the termination, setting aside or modification of any agreement between the company and any person not referred to in clause (d), provided that no such agreement shall be terminated, set aside or modified except after due notice to the party concerned and provided further that no such agreement shall be modified except after obtaining the consent of the party concerned; the setting aside of any transfer, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property made or done by or against the company within three months before the date of the application, which would, if made or done by or against an individual, be deemed in his insolvency to be a fraudulent preference. Any other matter for which in the opinion of the Company Law Board it is just and equitable that provision should be made.
Effect of alteration of memorandum or articles of company by order:
Where an order makes any alteration in the memorandum or articles of a company, then, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the company shall not have power, except to the extent, if any permitted in the order, to make without the leave of the Company Law Board, any alteration whatsoever which is inconsistent with the order, either in the memorandum or in the articles. The alterations made by the order shall, in all respects, have the same effect as if they had been duly made by the company in accordance with the provisions of this Act.A certified copy of every order altering or giving leave to alter, a company's memorandum or articles, must within thirty days after the making thereof, be filed by the company with the Registrar who shall registrar the same.If default is made in complying with the above provisions, the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Consequences of termination or modification of certain agreements:
Where an order terminates, sets aside or modifies an agreement:-
the order shall not give rise to any claim whatever against the company by any person for damages or for compensation for loss of office or in any respect, either in pursuance of the agreement or otherwise; no managing or other director or manager whose agreement is so terminated or set aside, shall for a period of five years from the date of the order terminating the agreement, without the leave of the Company Law Board, be appointed, or act, as the managing or other director or manager of the company. Any person who knowingly acts as a managing or other director or manager of a company in contravention of the above provision, every director of the company, who is knowingly a party to such contravention shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. The Company Law Board will not grant leave for appointment as managing director or director or manager of the company unless notice of the intention to apply for leave has been served on the Central Government and that Government has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
Powers of Central Government to prevent oppression or mismanagement:
The Central Government may appoint such number of persons as the Company Law Board may, by order in writing, specify as being necessary to effectively safeguard the interests of the Company or its shareholders or public interests, to act as directors thereof for such period not exceeding 3 years on any one occasion as it deems fit if the Company Law Board:-
On a reference being made to it by the Central Government ; or on an application of not less than one hundred members of the company or of members of the company holding not less than one-tenth of the total voting power therein, is satisfied, after such inquiry as it deems fit to make, that it is necessary to make the appointment or appointments in order to prevent the affairs of the company being conducted either in a manner which is oppressive to any members of the company or in a manner which is prejudicial to the interests of the company or to public interest.
However, in lieu of passing order as aforesaid, the Company Law Board may, if the company has not availed itself of the option given to it of proportional representation to minority shareholders on the Board of the company, direct the company to amend its articles in the manner provided section 265 and make fresh appointments of directors in pursuance of the articles as so amended within such time as may be specified in that behalf by the Company Law Board.
In case the Central Government passes such an order it may, if thinks fit, direct that until new directors are appointed in pursuance of the order aforesaid, not more than two members of the company specified by the Company law Board shall hold office as additional directors of the company. The Central Government shall appoint such additional directors on such directions.
The person appointed as a director by the Central Government in accordance with the above provisions, need not hold any qualification shares or need to retire by rotation. However, his office as director may be terminated at any time by the Central Government and another person appointed in his place. No change in the constitution of the Board of Directors can take place after an additional director is appointed by the Central Government in accordance with these provisions unless approved by the Company Law Board. The Central Government in such cases may also issue such directions to the company as it may consider necessary or appropriate in regard to its affairs.
Power of the Tribunals to prevent change in Board of Directors :
Where a complaint is made to the Company Law Board by the managing director or any other director or the manager of a company that, as a result of a change which has taken place or is likely to take place in ownership or any shares held in the company, a change in the Board of directors is likely to take place which (if allowed) would affect prejudicially the affairs of the company, the Company Law Board may, if satisfied, after such inquiry as it thinks fit to make that it is just and proper to do so, by order direct that no resolution passed or that may be passed or no action taken or may be taken to effect a change in the Board of directors after the date of the complaint shall have effect unless confirmed by the Company Law Board.
Any such order shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act or in the memorandum or articles of the company, or in any agreement with, or any resolution passed in general meeting by, or by the Board of directors or, the company. The Company Law Board shall have power when any such complaint is received by it, to make an interim order to the effect set out above, before making or completing the inquiry aforesaid. Nothing contained above shall apply to a private company, unless it is a subsidiary of a public company.
Powers of Inspectors [S.240]:
Where an inspector investigating the affairs of the company thinks it necessary to investigate the affairs of another company in the same management or group , he is empowered to do so. However as mentioned in section 239(2), he has to obtain prior approval of the Central Government for that purpose. Section 240 has been amended by the Amendment of 2000 .Sub-section (1) was substituted. The new sub-section provides that it shall be the duty of all officers and other employees and agents of the company and those of any other body corporate whose affairs are being investigated under Section 239:
a) to preserve and to produce to an inspector or any other person authorized by him in this behalf with the previous approval of the Central Government, all books and papers of or relating to the other body corporate, which are in their custody or power; and
b) otherwise to give to the inspector, all assistance in connection with the investigation which they are reasonable able to give.
For facilitating the task of the inspector it is the duty of all officers in charge of the management of the company to produce to the inspector all books and papers of the company which are in the custody and power and to give to the inspector all assistance in connection with the investigation which they are reasonably able to give.The inspector may examine on oath any such person and for this purpose require his personal attendance.If a person required to appear or to produce books, makes a default that is a punishable offence.Where an inspector finds a person, whom he has no power to examine on oath, ought to be so examined the inspector may do so with the previous approval of the Central Government. Notes of any such examination are to be taken in writing and signed by the person examined and may be used in evidence against him .A refusal to answer any question is also punishable.
Oppression and mismanagement are part and parcel of business. During the course of business, oppression of small/minority shareholders takes place by the majority shareholders who are in control of the company. Similarly, mismanagement of business is not uncommon. When we talk of mismanagement we mean mismanagement of resources. Mismanagement could mean siphoning of funds, causing losses due to rash decision, not maintaining proper records, not calling requisite meetings. Finer version of mismanagement could arise where the management does not act/react to a business situation leading to downfall of business.
The concept of oppression and mismanagement is more relevant or common to family owned concerns. The reasons are very obvious. Family owned concerns are owned by family members who over time develop vested interest in business vested interest in their own heirs being the most common - thereby leading to oppression of other family members. Here typically, the controlling member of the family appropriates the family holdings by means of either a fresh issue or fraudulent transfers in his favor or reconstitutes the board in such a manner as to alienate the other family members. The result is the other family members get oppressed.
Secondly, the family owned concerns are not professional managed and their system of functioning is usually personal. They lack probity and fair play. They generally do business in a manner where they begin to benefit personally to the exclusion of other members. This leads to oppression of other family members/mismanagement of companies.
In order to check all these discrepancies the need was felt to have any measure to prevent the Oppression and mismanagement and thus under Chapter 6th of Part 6th of Companies Act , 1956 provides for the judicial as well as administrative remedies to check Oppression and mismanagement. It is a powerful tool which provides such power that even a singer member can approach Company Law Board if any of his right has been infringed or in order to prevent the Oppression and mismanagement in the company.
1. Singh Avtar .Company Law(Lucknow:Eastern Book Company) 2008.
2. Kapoor N.D. Elements of Mercantile Law(New Delhi:Sultan Chand and Sons) 2009.
3. Tripathi S.C. Modern Company Law (Allahabad:Central Law Publications) 2006.
4. Saharay H.K. Company Law (New Delhi:Universal Law Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd) 2008.
Available at http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/oppression visited on August 9,2010
 (2004) 4 Comp. L.J. 1 (S.C.)
 Worldwide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Mrs. Margaret T. Desor , AIR 1990 S.C. 737
 AIR 1961 Punj. 485
 Re, Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd.,(1961) 31 Comp. Cas. 193.
 Lalita Rajya lakshmi v. Indian Motor Co. ,AIR 1962 Cal. 127.
 Gajabai v. Patni Transport Co.,(1965) 2 Comp. L. J. 234
 Palghat Exports Ltd. v. F.V. Chandran , (1994) 79 Comp. Cas. 213 Ker.
 Jaledhar Chakraborty v. Power Tools Appliances Co. Ltd.,(1994) 79 Comp. Cas. 505
 Dinesh Sharma and another v. Vardeen Agrotech (P.)Ltd. and others ,(2007) 1 Comp. L.J. 155 (CLB)
 Section 408(1) of the Companies Act , 1956.
 Available at legalserviceindia.com visited on August 7,2010
 Sahu Jain Ltd. v. Dy. Secy ,Minister of Finance,  2 Comp LJ 145
 S.240-This duty is imposed upon all officers and other employees and agents of the company , and where the company is or was managed by a managing director…………………….,etc ,or where it is a firm ,upon all its partners
The author can be reached at: email@example.com