MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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.

Latest Legal News