Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra
Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388
Court:
Supreme Court of India
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners were minority shareholders in a private company.
They alleged oppression and mismanagement by the majority shareholders and directors of the company.
The dispute involved claims that the company’s affairs were being conducted in a manner oppressive to minority shareholders, including misappropriation of funds, exclusion from management, and unfair treatment.
The petitioners sought relief under Section 397 and Section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now replaced by the Companies Act, 2013 provisions).
The company and majority shareholders resisted the petition.
Legal Issues:
What is the scope of the court’s power under the oppression and mismanagement provisions of the Companies Act?
When can courts intervene in a company’s internal affairs on grounds of oppression or mismanagement?
What are the criteria for establishing oppression or mismanagement under the Act?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that the provisions under Sections 397 and 398 allow courts to intervene and provide relief if the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is prejudicial or oppressive to members, especially minorities.
The Court laid down the principle that:
The test is whether the conduct is burdensome, harsh, and wrongful.
The conduct must be unfair and prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners as members.
The Court emphasized that minority shareholders’ rights must be protected, and the majority cannot exercise power in an arbitrary or oppressive manner.
Courts have wide discretion to grant relief, including regulation of the company’s affairs or ordering buyout of shares.
Legal Principles Established:
1. Oppression and Mismanagement:
Oppression means burdensome, harsh, and wrongful conduct.
Mismanagement means conduct amounting to mismanagement of the company’s affairs.
Both justify court intervention to protect members.
2. Protecting Minority Shareholders:
Courts have the duty to ensure fair treatment of minority shareholders.
Majority powers cannot be used to exclude or oppress minorities.
3. Court’s Discretion:
Courts may issue a range of orders, including:
Regulation of company affairs,
Restraining unfair acts,
Ordering purchase of shares at a fair value,
Other remedies as justice requires.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013) — deals with oppression and mismanagement.
Provides a remedy for members aggrieved by the conduct of company affairs.
Supporting Case Law:
1. N. Narayanan v Nair Service Society Ltd AIR 1968 SC 1161
Defined oppression and emphasized protection of minority shareholders.
2. M/s Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd v G.D. Khosla AIR 1972 SC 1484
Elaborated on mismanagement and court’s role in intervening.
Summary:
Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra is a leading Supreme Court decision affirming the protection of minority shareholders against oppressive conduct by majority shareholders or management.
It defines the scope of court intervention under the oppression and mismanagement provisions of company law.
The case empowers courts to act as a safeguard against abuse of power within companies and ensure equitable treatment of all members.
RELATED Blog
0 comments