Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

NCLT Must Provide Reasoned and Speaking Order : Karnataka High Court on Byju's Share Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court emphasizes necessity of detailed NCLT ruling, maintains status quo on shareholding in Byju's amid allegations of oppression and mismanagement.

The Karnataka High Court has remitted the case concerning allegations of oppression and mismanagement against Think and Learn Private Limited to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for fresh consideration. In a judgment delivered by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind, the court underscored the necessity for the NCLT to provide a reasoned and speaking order while emphasizing the importance of maintaining the status quo regarding shareholding until a final decision is made.

The case involves an appeal by General Atlantic Singapore TL Pte. Ltd. and Sofina S.A., shareholders of Think and Learn Private Limited, alleging oppressive acts and mismanagement by the company's current management. The primary contention revolves around the issuance of rights offer letters and subsequent allotment of shares, which the appellants argue were in violation of NCLT's interim orders.

Necessity of Reasoned and Speaking Order:

The High Court highlighted the importance of a reasoned and speaking order by the NCLT when deciding interim applications under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court noted, "The NCLT must independently and meticulously assess the allegations and provide a detailed reasoning for its decisions to ensure transparency and fairness in its proceedings."

The court directed that the status quo regarding shareholding be maintained until the NCLT issues its final decision. "The parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the subject matter dispute as obtained on today," the bench ordered, emphasizing that any transactions or allotments made during the interim period would be subject to the NCLT's final order.

Interim Reliefs Under Companies Act:

The judgment delves into the provisions of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, which provide for relief in cases of oppression and mismanagement. It reiterates the NCLT's authority to make interim orders to regulate the conduct of the company's affairs in a manner deemed just and equitable. "The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings, make any interim order regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs upon such terms and conditions which may be imposed as just and equitable," the court noted.

Conduct of Company’s Affairs:

The court observed that the appellants had raised serious allegations regarding the issuance of shares in violation of the NCLT's interim orders. "Despite the order dated 27.02.2024 and the subsequent order dated 04.04.2024, the respondents have been brazenly committing breach and have been issuing the shares, which conduct is unlawful," the appellants contended.

Quotes from the Judgment:

Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria remarked, "During the proceedings of remand and till the decision which may be taken by the NCLT, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the subject matter dispute as obtained on today."

Conclusion:

The Karnataka High Court's directive to the NCLT to reconsider the case with a detailed and reasoned order underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness and transparency in corporate governance disputes. By maintaining the status quo on shareholding, the judgment aims to prevent any further complications and ensure that the final decision by the NCLT is reached without undue influence or premature actions. This decision is expected to set a significant precedent for future cases involving allegations of oppression and mismanagement in corporate entities.

 

Date of Decision: July 5, 2024

General Atlantic Singapore TL Pte. Ltd. vs. Byju Raveendran & Ors.

Similar News