Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 30483 OF 2015
ST. MARY’S HOTEL PVT. LTD. AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
T.O. ALEYAS AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 30589 OF 2015
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
JUDGMENT
1. In view of the elaborate hearing that has taken place we
are of the view that our eventual decision to dismiss both the
special leave petitions should be supported by the brief reasons
therefor.
Page 1
2
2. The petitioners could be conveniently described as the
‘Abraham Group’ and the respondents as the ‘Aleyas Group’.
Both are branches of the same family. The dispute relates to
the shareholding of the two groups in St. Mary’s Hotel Private
Limited (hereinafter for short ‘the Company’), which inter alia
owns two hotel properties in the State of Kerala.
3. The Company was incorporated in the year 1996 and with
the passage of time while the Abraham Group consisting of
T.O. Abraham and Binu Zacharia held 8,00,000 shares, the
Aleyas Group consisting of T.O. Aleyas and Bobby Kuriakose
held 7,00,000 shares. There was a Resolution of the Board
dated 17.04.2002 which is claimed by the Aleyas Group to be
pursuant to an earlier decision that all the 5 branches of the
JUDGMENT
family should hold equal shares in the company.
Consequently, there were some transfers made by the said
Resolution. It appears that in the said Board meeting dated
17.04.2002 it was also resolved that 2,20,000 shares would be
transferred by Bobby Kuriakose to T.O. Abraham. The
Page 2
3
aforesaid decision alone i.e. transfer of 2,20,000 shares from
Bobby Kuriakose to T.O. Abraham alongwith decisions taken in
the Extraordinary General Meeting dated 25.04.2003; Notice of
Board Meeting dated 03.06.2003 and Notice of Extraordinary
General Meeting dated 03.06.2003 and the decisions taken in
the said meetings were challenged. The aforesaid decisions
pertain to induction and removal of Directors pursuant to the
transfer of shares as per the Resolution dated 17.04.2002. The
Company Law Board (for short ‘ the CLB’) by its judgment and
order dated 5.2.2013 in Company Petition No. 30/2003[CHE]
while granting the other reliefs sought, disposed of the said
company petition filed by the Aleyas Group upholding the
validity of transfer of 2,20,000 shares from Bobby Kuriakose to
JUDGMENT
T.O. Abraham. Aggrieved, the Aleyas Group moved the High
Court of Kerala by way of an appeal under Section 10F of the
Companies Act, 1956. The High Court, notwithstanding the
fact that the challenge before it pertained only to the transfer of
2,20,000 shares, (all other directions of the CLB were in favour
of the Aleyas Group) set aside the entire of the Resolution
Page 3
4
dated 17.04.2002, the effect of which was that the decisions
with regard to transfer of shares to members of other branches
of the family, which were not questioned before the CLB and
hence the High Court, were also set aside. This was by
judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed in Company Appeal No.4 of
2013.
4. The findings of the High Court as recorded in paragraphs
40, 41 and 43 of its judgment dated 31.03.2015 may
conveniently be reproduced herein to appreciate the reasons
for the conclusions recorded in the said judgment dated
31.03.2015.
“ 40. The CLB, at the earlier point, found that
there was no material to find that one fifth of
the shares should be allotted to each families of
the sons of Kuruvila Onnittan nor was there
evidence with respect to the decisions taken on
17.4.2002. The situation remains as such even
now. Presently, the CLB found that the fact
that Bobby Kuriakose did not take proceedings
against the transfer of shares, even after a
sufficiently long period of time of its registration
and intimation to the ROC, stands against his
plea of the transfer being bad. It was also
found that, despite T.O. Abraham having not
proved the consideration, that was of no
JUDGMENT
Page 4
5
consequence and that alone cannot lead to a
conclusion that, no such transfer took place.
After noticing the admission of Bobby
Kuriakose, that share certificates and blank
transfer forms were handed over to T.O.
Abraham, the Tribunal finds that “it must have
been done with some understanding between
the parties”. Theory of parity amongst the five
branches, appears to be a figment of
imagination of the petitioners and hence the
transfer of 2,20,000 shares from Bobby
Kuriakose to T.O. Abraham, could not be
declared null and void, is the finding of the
CLB.
41. We cannot, but say that, the said finding
has been entered on mere surmises and
conjectures and the Tribunal has not looked into
the evidence of such transfer, as per the
provisions of the Companies Act or otherwise.
No presumption could have been raised under
Section 195, since the minutes book was
absent. Neither of the parties substantiated
their conflicting contentions of parity and
transfer to the Managing Director with any
other evidence. Even after the remand,
specifically directing the Tribunal to conduct an
enquiry, the parties rested contend, slinging
mud on each other. No evidence at all was let
into substantiate the conflicting contentions and
they remained in the realm of statements and
assertions. We would not elaborate on the
decisions placed under Section 111 since the
delay was projected to contest the parity sought
by Abraham group and the rectification of the
register conferring 20% on each family. Having
found against parity, delay aspect would be
JUDGMENT
Page 5
6
inconsequential.
43. We feel that the CLB’s findings upholding
the transfer and the decision on 17.04.2002 is
based on no evidence. We are unable to agree
with the CLB that the transfer effected and
affirmed by the Board on 17.04.2002 was
valid. We are unable to agree with either of the
conflicting contentions of the parties for
absolute lack of evidence. Neither can the
contention of parity, allegedly decided on
28.11.2001, be upheld nor can the contention of
the majority being validly transferred to the
Abraham group on 17.4.2002 be countenanced.
Both the decisions remain in the realm of
hypothesis. The transfer effected to the
Managing Director himself is found to be
oppressive, insofar as there being absolutely no
explanation or evidence as to how a
shareholder, having substantial interest in the
company, transferred majority shares to the
Managing Director, thus rendering himself a
rank minority. There were also considerable
amounts, more than 57 lakhs outstanding as
loans to be repaid by the company to Bobby
Kuriakose. The decisions taken are not
properly taken at the Board Meeting as per the
provisions of the Companies Act. The decision
in toto on 17.4.2002 would have to go. In such
circumstance we restore the parties to the
position that existed on 19.10.2001 with T.O.
Abraham and T.O. Aleyas holding 3 lakh
shares each and Binu Zacharia and Bobby
Kuriakose holding 5 and 4 lakh shares
respectively.”
JUDGMENT
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Aleyas Group filed
Page 6
7
Review Petition No. 434 of 2015 before the High Court seeking
review of the order dated 31.03.2015. By the impugned order
dated 09.10.2015 passed in the Review Petition (subject matter
of challenge in SLP(C) No. 30589 of 2015) the order dated
31.03.2015 was reviewed and interference made by the said
order with the entire of the Resolution dated 17.04.2002 was
corrected and confined to the issue of transfer of 2,20,000
shares from Bobby Kuriakose to T.O. Abraham alone.
6. Having considered the grounds on which the High Court
had thought it proper to reverse the decision of the CLB, details
of which have been set out herein above, we are of the view
that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 10F of the
Companies Act, 1956 by the High Court to interfere with the
JUDGMENT
order of the CLB cannot be faulted. If the subject matter of the
appeal before the High Court was limited to the validity of the
transfer of 2,20,000 shares from Bobby Kuriakose to T.O.
Abraham, the interference made with the entire of the
Resolution dated 17.04.2002 thereby invalidating the other
Page 7
8
share transfers, not under challenge before the High Court,
was clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. The
correction made in the exercise of the review jurisdiction was,
therefore, justified and will not call for any interference.
7. Consequently and for the reasons aforesaid both the
special leave petitions will have to be dismissed, which we
hereby do.
………………..................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
………………..................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Page 8