Companies Act_Practical Problems_94

A Company wants to provide financial assistance to its employees to enable them to subscribe for fully paid shares of the company. Does it amount to purchase of its own shares. If, in the instant case, the company itself purchasing to redeem its preference shares, does it amount to acquisition of its own shares?

Companies Act_Practical Problems_93

J held 100 partly paid up shares of LKM Limited. The company asked him to pay the final call money on the shares. Due to some unavoidable circumstances he was unable to pay the amount of call money to the company. At a general meeting of the shareholders, the chairman disallowed him to caste his vote on the ground that the articles do not permit a shareholder to vote if he has not paid the calls on the shares held by the him. J contested the decision of the chairman. Referring to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 decide whether the contention of J is valid.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_92

In course of administration of the affairs of a limited company, Chairman of its Board of Directors came across a matter, which required the approval by say of a board resolution. In the prevailing circumstances, it is not possible to convent and hold a Board Meeting. The Chairman approaches you to advise him of the way and the relevant procedure to obtain such approval without holding the Board Meeting. You are required to advise him on the matter as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_91

Articles of association of a company reserved the powers for calling the annual general meeting. The managing director of the company, without reference to the Board, called an annual general meeting. Is the annual general meeting validly called ? If not, what should be done to make it valid ?

Companies Act_Practical Problems_90

A whole-time director of a company made an invention during the course of his employment with the company. He patented the invention in his own name and appropriated the benefits to himself. Can he do so ?

Companies Act_Practical Problems_89

The auditor of Trilok Ltd. did not report on the matters specified in sub-section (1A) of Section 227 of the companies Act, 1956, as he was satisfied that no comment is required. Advise.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_88

The auditors were requested by the management to accept the draft minutes of Board, since the minutes book has been misplaced. Comment

Companies Act_Practical Problems_87

The articles of ABC Limited provided that only those shareholders would be entitled to vote whose names have been there on the Register of Members for two months before the date of the meeting. X, a member, of the ABC Limited was holding 200 equity shares of the company. X transferred his shares to Y before one month from the date on which the meeting was due. The name of Y could not be entered in the Register of Members as the application of transfer of shares was pending. X attended the meeting but he was prohibited by the company from exercising his voting right on the ground that he has not hold his shares for specified period as provided in the articles before the date of the meeting. State whether X can exercise his voting right in the meeting ? State also the grounds upon which X may be excluded from exercising his voting rights in the meeting of the shareholders.

According to provision of companies Act, 1956. A member of a company has no voting right unless he actually acquires shares. A person becomes member only when his name is entered in register of member of the company. Till then, he is only holder.
In case of transfer of share, transfer is entitled to vote when his name is entered into register of member. The case is, X transfer his shares to y before one month from the date on which meeting was done and name of y is not entered is the register of member as the application of transfer of share is pending. Article of company provided that only there shareholders would be entitled to vote whose names have been there on register of members for two month of the above. Since transfer of shares procedure is pending and the name of y is not entered into register of member. Hence y is neither a shareholder nor he has right to vote. And x can exercise his voting right in the meeting as his name has not been struck off from register of member.
But if transfer process is complete and x name is struck off from company’s register of member than he is excluded from the voting right.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_86

The Board of Directors of XYZ Ltd;. filled up a casual caused by the death of Mr. P by appointing Mr. C as a director on 3rd April, 2009. Unfortunately Mr. C expired on 15th May, 2009 after working about 40 days as a director. The Board now wishes to fill up the casual vacancy by appointing Mrs. C in the forthcoming meeting of the Board. Advise the Board in this regard.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_85

The Articles of Association of a company provide that the meeting of the Board of
Directors of the company will be held on the last Friday of every month. The Secretary of the company as a result does not serve the notice to the individual directors of the company. Consequently, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 20th February, 2008. The meeting was attended by all the directors with the exception of two directors out of a total of 10 directors and certain resolution were passed. The two absentee directors object to the meeting and the proceedings of the meeting for want of notice. Referring to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, decide:
(i) Whether the objection raised by the two absentee directors is valid?
(ii) Would your answer be the same in case the Secretary of the company, instead of sending notice on a usual format to the individual directors, sent a copy of the
Articles of Association to each one of the directors?

Section 286 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not specify any form of notice or period of notice. Usually, a week’s notice is considered sufficient. However, if the Articles provide that Board Meetings will be held on fixed days of every month or where the directors are duly informed that in future all meetings of the Board will be held on a fixed day of every month, it will be sufficient compliance with the statute [A. Chettiar Firm v. Kaleshwar Mills]. But, even where meetings are held on a fixed day of every month, a notice is usually sent to the directors as a reminder.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_84

The Board of Directors of ABC Private Limited having a paid-up share capital of Rs. 1 Crore consists of two directors, one of them, viz, Mr. S possesses membership of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. The company desires to appoint him as a company secretary also. State the legal position.

Under Section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956, in case of a company having only two directors, none of them can be appointed company secretary in spite of possessing the requisite qualification. In view of the overriding effect of Section 383A, consideration of section 314 is unnecessary.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_83

XYZ Limited has its subsidiary company PRM Ltd, which is formed to carry out some of the objectives of XYZ Limited. XYZ Limited suspends one of its several businesses, by passing a resolution at the company‘s extraordinary general meeting, with effect from Ist January 2008. The business so suspended continues to be suspended until March 2008. On Ist April 2008, a group of shareholders of XYZ Limited file a petition in the court for winding of the company on the ground of suspension of business by the company. Referring to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, decide:
(i) Whether the shareholders’ contention shall be tenable?
(ii) What would be your answer in case XYZ Limited suspends all its business?



Section 433 provides that if a company does not commence its business within a year from its incorporation or suspends its business for a whole year, it may be wound up by the court .The contention of the shareholders of XYZ Ltd that the company is liable to be wound up on the ground of suspensions of business, is not tenable for the following reasons:
(i) (a) A company may be wound up by court if a company suspends its business for a whole year. Here the business was suspended only on 1. 1.2008. Hence on 1st April, 2008 the business has not been suspended for the whole year to attract Section 433(c)
(b) Where a company having much business discontinues one of them, it cannot be said to have suspended business within the meaning of Section 433(c).
(c) Where a company ceases to do any business but is a holding company of subsidiaries engaged in the pursuit of the business, which it was previously doing, it cannot be said that the company has suspended its business (Ref; Eastern Telegraph Company Ltd).
(ii) Even if XYZ Ltd suspended all its business the suspension was not for a period of more that 1 year as on 1.4.1997 and hence the provisions of Section 433(c) are not applicable. Again for the reasons stated in (i) (c) above XYZ Ltd cannot be said to have suspended its business as its subsidiary in carrying on the business.

Comapnies Act_Practical Problems_82

A Group of shareholders of a company while filing a petition for relief against mismanagement in the conduct of the affairs of the company feel that since the matter has become so serious that they feel that the ultimate relief for mismanagement will be by way of filing a petition for winding up and hence they prefer to file two petitions, one for relief against mismanagement and the other for winding up. State whether simultaneous petitions or composite petition is maintainable.



Supreme Court in Worldwide Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Mrs. Margaret T. held that "a composite petition under sections 397, 398 and 433(f) of the Act is maintainable." This judgement overrides the previous juedgements of several High courts.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_81

Alpha Ltd. and Beta Ltd. entered into a scheme of amalgamation by which Alpha Ltd. would transfer its entire undertaking to Beta Ltd. However, the Central Government raised an objection that unless the objects clause of the companies are similar, and memorandum empowers to do so, the scheme of amalgamation cannot be permitted. Is the contention of the Central Government correct?

The power to amalgamate may flow from the memorandum or it may be acquired by resorting to the statute. Section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 indicates that a company which desires to amalgamate with another company will take necessary steps to come before a court for alteration of its memorandum in aid of such amalgamation. The statute confers a right on a company to alter its memorandum in aid of amalgamation with another company. The provisions contained in sections 391 to 396 and 494, illustrate instances of statutory power of amalgamating a company with another company without any specific power in the memorandum. [Hari Krishna Lokia (v) Hoolungooree Tea Co,].

Section 391 is not only a complete code, but it is in the nature of a single window clearance system to ensure that parties are not put to avoidable, unnecessary and cumber some procedure for making repeated applications to court for various alterations and changes. What is to be seen is the over all fairness mid feasibility of scheme of amalgamation and there need not be any 'unison of objects of both transferor and the transferee company. [R Morarjee Gokuldas spg. & wrg. Co.,]. To amalgamate with another company is the power of the company and not an object of the company. Irrespective of the objects clause, the court is empowered to sanction scheme of amalgamation provided it does not prejudice the interest of the public. Therefore, based on the above judicial rulings, the contention of the central government is not correct.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_80

A scheme of merger of XYZ Ltd with ABC Ltd was approved by the shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting and the exchange ratio of 3 shares of ABC Ltd for 20 shares in XYZ Ltd was approved. The proposal was also okayed by a lending financial institution which held 45% shares in XYZ Ltd. The valuation was carried out by one of the directors of XYZ Ltd who is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The valuation was affirmed by three independent valuers nominated by the shareholders in general meeting. However, certain leaseholder properties, under license, which were not transferable, were not taken into account in the valuation. While the scheme was awaiting the Court's sanction, it was challenged by certain shareholders on the ground that the exclusion of leasehold assets in the valuation made the scheme 'Unfair'. Decide giving reasons:
(i) Whether the contention of the shareholders is tenable?
(ii) What factors would the Court take into account in approving the exchange ratio?

The contention of the shareholders in this case shall not be tenable. The court is not to disturb a scheme unless the person who challenges the valuation satisfies the court that the valuation arrived at was grossly unfair. Valuation in this case was approved by the shareholders and also okayed by the lending institution(s) which are usually well-informed and scrutinize the scheme with expert’s eye and which are also presumed to act bonafide. In the similar case of Tata Oil Mills Ltd. Re. (1994), the court held that the presumption of fairness was writ large on the face of the scheme. The Court did not attach importance to the fact that certain leasehold assets and properties held under license were excluded from valuation. Such assets, the court said, were neither transferable nor heritable. They are in the nature of a personal privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision in Hindustan Lever Employee‘s Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1994) and accepted the exchange ratio proposed. The Supreme Court found no objection to the
valuation being done by one of the directors of TOMCO (XYZ Co. in this case). His report did not show any prejudice and was also affirmed by the independent valuers. Supreme Court also enumerated all the possible methods of valuation such as, market price, book value and yield basis and pointed out that a combination of all or some of the methods, may have to be adopted in circumstances of a particular case. Thus based on the above explanation and the decisions given by the Supreme Court, it can be concluded that the contention of the shareholders that the
exclusion of certain leasehold assets in the valuation has made the scheme unfair, shall not be tenable.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_79

The Board meeting of Fortune Ltd. has the following schedules for the year 2009:
1st Meeting - 1st January, 2009
2nd Meeting - 30th June, 2009
3rd Meeting - 1st July, 2009
4th Meeting - 31st December, 2009
State whether the Board Meetings schedules are as per compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. What would be your views if the meeting to be held on 30th June, 2009 is adjourned due to lack of quorum?




As per Section 285, in the case of every company, a meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held at least once in every three months and at least four such meetings shall be held in every year. The section does not state the gap between two board meetings. In the present case four meetings have been scheduled for the year 2009 even though the gap between two board meetings is more than 3 months. However, as per the section there appear to be no contravention. If the Board meeting to be held on 30th June, is adjourned due to lack of quorum, again a meeting is held on some other date, the company shall not be deemed to have
contravened the provisions of Section 285. If the said meeting is proposed to be held on 30th June, 2009 and assumingly to be adjourned for want of quorum, the meeting automatically stand adjourned by virtue of Section 288 (1) till the same day in the next week, at the same time and place. And if the same day is a public holiday, then the meeting stands adjourned till the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_78

In a public company the total number of directors are 12 and 2 office of the directors have fallen vacant. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
(a) What would be the quorum for the Board meeting?
(b) Can the articles of a company fix the quorum (higher or lower) for the Board meeting?
(c) Assuming if there are 15 directors in the company and of which 13 happen to be interested directors, what would be the quorum?
(d) How do you resolve the situation if all the directors are interested in a particular transaction?

Where total number of directors are 12 and 2 offices of the directors have fallen vacant, we find: 1/3 of (12-2) = 1/3 of 10 = 3 1/3 directors. If the fraction of 3rd were to be rounded off as one then 4, i.e. 3+1 directors would constitute the quorum for the Board meetings. If at any time the number of the remaining directors exceeds or is equal to two thirds of the total strength, the number of the remaining directors who are non-interested but present at the meeting, not being less than two shall constitute the quorum. For example, there are in all 15 directors and the Board meeting commences with all the 15 directors. During the currency of the meeting, an item comes up for discussion in respect of which 13 happen to be “interested” directors. In this case, in spite of the excess of the interested directors being more than two-thirds, the prescribed minimum number of noninterested directors constituting the quorum, namely, 2 present at the meeting are to transact the particular item of business.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_77

Out of the powers exercisable by the Board under Section 292, the board wants to
delegate to the Managing Director of the company the power to borrow monies otherwise than on debentures. Advise whether such a delegation is possible? Would your answer be different, if the delegation is given to the manager or any other principal officer including a branch officer of the company?

It has been held in [P. Rangaswami Reddiar and Another vs. R. Krishnaswami Reddiar and another (1971) 43 Comp. Case 232] that where borrowing is permissible under the company’s articles and moneys were borrowed on promissory notes, such transaction would come within the powers of the director. It has also been held in the same case that where a person was appointed as the managing director of the company by the Board’s resolution vested with full powers of the management of the affairs of the company and authorised to sign all the papers of the company, he would have full powers to borrow money on a promissory note even without a resolution of the Board as contemplated by Section 292(c) of the Act.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_76

The Board of Directors of Sun Star Ltd. are contributing every year to a charitable
organization a sum of Rs.1 lac. In a particular year, the company suffered losses and the directors are contemplating to contribute the said amount in spite of the losses. In this connection, state whether the directors can do so?

The power to donate to general charities is not conditional to existence of any profit. In such a case they may contribute up to the limit given in Section. 293(1) (e), even though the company may be working at a loss. Under the section a public company can contribute in any financial year not exceeding Rs 50,000 or 5% of its average net profits during the three preceding financial years whichever is greater.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_75

On 14th March, 2007, Abhishek was appointed as additional director on the Board
of directors of Amrit Ltd. The annual general meeting of the company was scheduled to be held on 25th September, 2007, but due to devastating fire all records of the company were destroyed. In order to re-build the records, the company approached the Registrar of Companies for extension of time for holding the annual general meeting till 30th November, 2007. As a Company Secretary of Amrit Ltd., what would be your advice to the Chairman about Abhishek, who was appointed as additional director during the year ?