Kapil N. Mehta Surat Vs Shree Laxmi Motors Limited

Estimated Reading Time: 16 minutes


In Kapil N. Mehta, Surat V. Shree Laxmi Motors Restricted, the organization passed a circuitous objective which was allowed by the Articles, be that as it may not envision beneath the Organization’s Demonstration at that point. A case was raised to provide the objective void as the Organizations’ Exhibit was calm on the issue. The Gujarat High Court pardoned the case on the grounds (bury alia) that without a specific law that denied circuitous objectives, the way that the Articles enabled the organization to pass circular objectives was not violative of the Organizations Demonstration.


  1. Prior to the consolidation of the respondent company, His Highness Maharaja of Chhota Udaipur, Virendrasinhji, and one Shri Jamshedji Panthki and one Shri Mukund Amratlal Shah ran a trade-in the organization within the title and fashion of M/s. Laxmi Motors and this firm was the approved merchant in South Gujarat for plenty of vehicles and spare parts made by Telco. The said firm built up a benefit station at Surat. The accomplices of the firm designated the primary applicant as the Chief of the said firm and put him in charge thereof. In some cases in January 1972, the Maharaja of Chhota Udaipur resigned from the firm, and in February 1972, Jamshedji Panthki passed on and the trade got to be vested in Shri M. A. Shah is subject to the liabilities payable to the beneficiaries of Jamshedji Panthki. In July 1972, said Shri M. A. Shah, Shri Homi, child of Shri Jamshedji Panthki, and the primary solicitor shaped the respondent private constrained company. The company took over the trade once in the past carried on by the above firm together with its assets, properties, and liabilities.
  2. Incompatibility of article 11 of the articles of affiliation of this company, the offers of this company were apportioned among the three bunches similarly. Hence, Shri M. A. Shah and people constituting Shah Bunch have 33.33% offers; Homi J. Panthki and people constituting Panthki Bunch have 33.33% offers and the primary solicitor and his relatives constituting the Mehta Group have 33.33% share. The moment and third petitioner are children of the primary solicitor. Without further ado after the enlistment of this company, the assertion of office or dealership between Telco and this company was executed in August 1972, and the assertion was recharged from time to time.
  3. It shows that within the year 1990-91, on coming to know that the company was in monetary trouble, Homi Panthki and Dinesh Shah, child of M. A. Shah went to Surat from Mumbai (where they regularly dwell) and began looking into the budgetary position of the company. It is the case of the respondents that they were avoided from analyzing the books of accounts and records of the company by the primary petitioner. Thereafter having found that the brother of the primary solicitor one Natwarlal Mehta (who was working as safe parts supervisor) was capable of a few of the fumbles, he was evacuated from his administration in 1994. The deals of petrol and diesel amid 1986-87 to 1991-92 were looked into by one Agarwal Kailash and Partners, a firm of chartered bookkeepers, which found that the deal of huge amounts of petrol and diesel amid those six a long time was not accounted for. Another firm of chartered bookkeepers, to be specific, Natwarlal Vepari & Co. was designated to see into the monetary issues, and they submitted three isolated reports dated 18.3.1996 certifying that due to the contrast in credit deal, the company had endured significant misfortunes within the three a long time.
  4. The respondent-company got a letter, dated 31.1.1996 tended to the Chairman by the Director (Sales) of Telco inquiring them to illuminate as to who was within the administration of the respondent-company. Two circular resolutions came to be passed by the larger party executives on 5.2.1996 and 8.2.1996 naming Homi Panthki and Dinesh Shah as the overseeing chief and joint chief separately in show disdain toward the restriction by the solicitors. On 8.5.1996 Telco was informed that the Mehta Group was without any management or regulatory control within the company. The solicitors by their letter of 9.8.1996 dissented against their expulsion from administration by fighting that the same was violative of Article 65 of the articles of affiliation.
  5. M/s. Natwarlal Vepari & Co. advanced and submitted a report, dated 7.8.1996. One critical perspective of the report was that the payee receipts for discount stipend gotten from the company to the tune of Rs. 1,98,000 between 1988-1992 were not accessible. The chartered bookkeepers moreover pointed out that in regard of discount relating to Daman office producing to Rs. 6,44,150 for the year 1990-91, the installments measuring Rs. 6,10,650 were made in cash after three a long time in February-March 1994, and the receipts of the payees were not accessible. The chartered bookkeepers communicated the conclusion that the veracity of these installments showed up to be far-fetched since it does not stand to reason that the clients would hold up for three a long time for getting the discount.
  6. The said report was sent to the solicitors and their clarification was looked for. That drove to advance correspondence between the parties. It shows that the applicants began another company within the title of Auro Motors Private Restricted within the in the meantime with the protest of procuring dealerships of Tata diesel vehicles. The respondents affirmed that applicants made wild-eyed endeavors to get dealerships from Telco in spite of the fact that they did not get it. From there on, assisted correspondence between the attorneys of the parties has resulted. Criminal procedures were recorded against the solicitors. The applicants challenged the same by recording Uncommon Criminal Application No. 491 of 1997 in this court. This court coordinated that the examination is legitimately done by another officer and it shows up that from that point, a charge sheet has been recorded against the solicitors.
Also Read  Smt. Pushpa Katoch vs Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. And Ors


• Whether beneath section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter alluded to as ‘the Act’) by conjuring the vital, specifically, ‘just and equitable’ the respondent-company seem wound up?


Petitioner’s Argument

On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that the arrangement of the company was based on individual relationship and common confidences among accomplices. There were breaches of the fundamental understanding that the applicants would take an interest within the conduct of the trade. The respondent-directors were blameworthy for persecution and fumble. They had fumbled, misconducted, and misused to the hindrance of the solicitors who were persecuted by the said chiefs in administration. The structure of the company as it consisted of 3 bunches of executives who rose to accomplices in the trade of Telco dealerships. The applicants were one of the rises to accomplices who had been vested with the administration by the articles of affiliation and by contracts at the start.

In any case, the other gathering of chiefs had misconducted to remove the applicants from their vested right to control and oversee the undertakings of the company. Solicitors state that this had brought almost the misfortune of certainty and need of shared confidence and understanding. It was submitted that the solicitors were looking for to be avoided from the administration, and, so, or something else, standards of disintegration of association were required to be conjured. This was a case of irretrievable and irreversible halt within the company on account of the need for fidelity within the administration of the company and there was no trust or plausibility of smooth and productive continuation of the company as a commercial concern. That within the circumstances, it was fair and even handed that the company would be wound up, especially, on the rule of disintegration of partnership”.

Respondent’s argument

For the sake of the respondents, a comprehensive answer had been recorded by Homi Panthki, asserted on 10 Walk 1997. It was submitted that the applicants had not come to the court with clean hands which they were themselves mindful of the disintegration within the budgetary issues of the respondent-company which was avoided by convenient intercession by himself as well as by Mr. Shah. It was submitted that when one is conjuring fair and even handed clauses, firstly, one must come to the court with clean hands.


Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the so-called grievance of the applicants was that they were evacuated from the administration and as watched by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the common interface of the shareholders ought to not be promptly yielded at the holy place of quarrels of executives for control to oversee the company as in Mehra’s case [(1999) 2 Comp LJ 261 (SC)]. Consequently, for the reasons expressed above, it was troublesome to work out the powers beneath section 433(f) of the Act within the showcase and the request was rejected.


In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the arrangements beneath sections 397 and 398 and 402 of the Act and watched that sections 397, 398 of the Act give alleviation to shareholders against persecution and fumble. From that point, having alluded to the particular arrangements of area 402, the Hon’ble Supreme Court watched as follows: 

“The promoters of a company, whether or not they were until now accomplices, choose to profit off the points of interest of shaping a constrained company. They deliberately and intentionally tie themselves by the arrangements of the Companies Act. The accommodation that a constrained company ought to be treated as a quasi-partnership ought to, hence, not be effortlessly acknowledged. Having respect to the wide powers beneath section 402, exceptionally seldom would it be vital to wind up any company in an appeal recorded beneath sections 397 and 398.”

It was expressed that in spite of the fact that there was a great sum of constraining within the entries of Mr. Soparkar with regard to hypothetical possibility of a halt within the assembly of the Board of directors, however, at the same time, it was fabric to note that so distant, a halt has not happened, and the company is proceeding to operate. In case required, it may work by passing circular resolutions. What the solicitors were doing was to undermine the creation of a halt in the future.

They were debilitating to stay truant or to stay show and square any resolutions. In that setting too, what was significant in that it was as it were the specific kind of things which are said in article 65 that requires one agreed vote from each gathering. Mr. Shelat expressed that nothing of the kind is being done by the respondent company. There was no affirmation at all within the request that any of those things were damaged by the respondent company. Mr. Shelat also stated that respondents don’t arrange to require any of those things specified in article 65 as of now. That being the position, the contention of making a halt within the Board of chiefs was a contention of despair.

Also Read  Deodatt Purshottam Patel v/s Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. 

What is the fabric to note is that there were genuine affirmations of misappropriation of stores and fumble against the applicants themselves. They were confronting a charge in a criminal court. In a circumstance like this, in reality, what was anticipated of them was that they deliberately step down. They have not done so, on the off chance that the executives of the other bunches take over the administration, they might not be blamed for that. Other than, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regularly, the accommodation that a constrained company be treated as a quasi-partnership cannot effectively be accepted.

This can be since, as once more watched by the Hon’ble Incomparable Court, the promoters of a company whether or not they were prior accomplices when they choose themselves to profit off the points of interest of shaping a constrained company, they intentionally and intentionally concur to tolerate by the arrangements of the Act. Other than, as watched by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Company Law Board has wide powers beneath section 402. Within the display case, in spite of the fact that there are affirmations of a fumble against the petitioners, it is the solicitors themselves who are affirming fumble and after that abuse on account of their being expelled from the administration. That’s what they have been saying right from the date of issuance of their take note by their advocate on 19.9.1996 by particularly alluding to section 397 of the Act. In case that is so, they had a cure beneath section 402 of the Act.

Section 443(2) of the Act lays down as follows: 

“Where the request is displayed on the ground that it is fair and even handed that the company ought to be wound up, the court may deny creating an arrange of winding up, in case it is of conclusion that a few other cures is available to the solicitors which they are acting preposterously in seeking to have the company wound up rather than seeking after that other remedy.”

The area orders the court that in the event that there’s another cure accessible, and on the off chance that the solicitors are acting nonsensically in looking to have a company wound up, rather than seeking after that other cure, the court may deny creating that arrangement. Here the word ‘may’ will need to be perused as ‘shall’. Hence, where these two conditions are fulfilled, the court isn’t anticipated to create an arrangement of winding up on the ground that it is fair and impartial. The so-called grievance of the solicitors is that they are expelled from the administration and as watched by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the common interface of the shareholders ought to not be promptly yielded at the holy place of quarrels of executives for power to oversee the company as in Mehra’s case. For the reasons which are expressed above, it was troublesome to work out the powers beneath section 433(f) of the Act within the showcase.

Further, the respondents can continuously point out that the other cure given and accessible within the statute is satisfactory and useful. The powers beneath section 402 are wide sufficient and in the case at all any case is required, Mehra’s case gives for the same wherein on a suitable application being made, and a case is made out, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court worked out the control beneath that area and coordinated Mr. Mehra to be designated as a chief in spite of the fact that he had been removed prior which arrange was cleared out undisturbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


And in the general layout of case law would appear that courts keep up the acknowledgment of common corporate law and benchmarks whereas choosing organization law things. Since this fundamental standard is upheld, there shows up to be small clarification behind courts to maintain a strategic distance from executing a stricter standard as a run the show concerning the shareholders’ agreement (SHA). In this way, pros who draft these shareholders’ agreement (SHAs) ought to consider the enforceability of these examiner rights when moving from other irrefutably more all-around made PE markets which, along these lines, may well be a through and through revolt beneath Indian law. Remaining up with the advancement of private esteem (PE) theories as a standard wellspring of financing, there has been a comparable increase in contrasts and clashes with investee organizations, sponsors, and distinctive partners.

Such contrasts develop on different grounds, going from the corporate organization, definitive rights and commitments, board assignment, and examiner exit, among others. An expansive number of these courses of action are recorded in an investors’ understanding (SHA) or a wandering course of action. These centers on the key definitive legal rights and commitments in SHAs that initiate talks between PE theorists and sponsors as well as the practical balance, response, and objective strategies.