2019] 171
pening of the contingency specified thereinupon. The imposition of penalty depends
contr^ atchte^ sviolation^ of^ the^ Exchange^ and^ when^ imposed^ operates^ to^ invalidate^ all^
and^ resulting^ from^ allotment^ of^ shares^ between^ the^ applicants^ for^ shares^
in^ the^ Company.^ Such a provision must be strictly construed.^ Unless^ the^ statute^
a^ ppclliecaar^ ttieornms^ so^ provides,^ when^ the^ Exchange^ intimates^ its^ desire^ to^ consider^ the^
tion,^ further,^ an^ inference^ that^ the^ Exchange^ has^ still^ rejected^ the^ applica-
cannot be made.”
(Emphasis
supplied)Section
286
of
the
Act
of
1956
dealing
with
requirement
of
notice
to
Di
rector, -
is
as
under:
“Sec. 286 - Notice of meetings.(^1 ) (^) gNivoteicne of every meeting of the Board of directors of a company shall be
addre^ isns^ writing^ to^ every^ director^ for^ the^ time^ being^ in^ India,^ and^ at^ his^ usual^
in India to every other director.
(^2 ) Ewvheory officer of the company whose duty it is to give notice as aforesaid and
fails
to
do
so
shall
be
punishable
with
fine
which
may
extend
to
one
thousand^
rupees.”
It
has
not
been
disputed
that
no
notice
under
section
286
had
been
given
to
Mr.^
Ashok
Mittal,
the
Director
when
impugned
resolutions
were
passed.
75.
In
Needle Industries (India) Ltd.
(
supra
),
it
has
been
observed
by
this
Court
that^
the
resolution
passed
by
the
Director
may
be
perfectly
legal
and
yet
op
pressive -
and
conversely
a
resolution
which
is
in
contravention
of
the
law
may
be^
in
the
interest
of
the
shareholders
of
the
company.
Every
illegality
will
not
make^
it
oppressive.
Prejudice
has
to
be
shown.
No
complaint
of
oppression
could^
be
entertained
merely
on
the
ground
of
failure
to
attach
notice
of
Board
meeting^
was
an
act
of
illegality.
It
has
to
be
shown
that
the
action
was
unfair
to^
the
person
to
whom
notice
has
not
been
given
and
causes
prejudice
to
him
in^
the
exercise
of
legal
and
proprietary
rights
as
shareholders.
76.
In
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad
(supra),
it
has
been
observed
that
their
conduct
is^
harsh,
burdensome,
wrong,
mala fide
or
and
is
for
a
collateral
purpose
against
probity^
and
good
conduct.
The
impugned
resolutions
are
unfair
to
Mr.
Ashok
Mittal^
in
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case
even
otherwise
the
absence
of^
the
notice
is
enough
to
invalidate
the
same
as
mandated
by
section
286.
77.
The
provisions
of
section
300
of
the
Companies
Act
has
also
been
pressed
into^
service
which
provides
that
interested
Director
is
not
to
participate
or
vote^
in
the
Board’s
proceedings.
Section
300
is
extracted
hereunder:
“Sec. 300 - Interested director not to participate or vote in Board’s proceedings.
( 1 ) No director of a company shall, as a director, take any part in the discussion
of, or vote on, any contract or arrangement entered into, or to be entered into, by
or on behalf of the company, if he is in any way, whether directly or indirectly,
concerned or interested in the contract or arrangement; nor shall his presence
count
for
the
purpose
of
forming
a
quorum
at
the
time
of
any
such
discussion
or
vote;^
and
if
he
does
not,
his
vote
shall
be
void.
Ram Parshotam Mittal
v.
Hotel Queen Road (P.) Ltd. (SC)