The Supreme Court held that an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal cannot be treated as invalid merely because the bench delivering the decision consisted of a majority of technical members. The Court clarified that the statutory framework governing the composition of benches of the appellate tribunal only requires that at least one judicial member be present. There is no requirement in law that judicial members must form the majority of the bench for the order to be valid.
The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod Chandran while considering appeals filed by minority shareholders in relation to a capital reduction scheme proposed by Bharti Telecom Limited. The dispute arose out of a proposal by the company to reduce its share capital by cancelling a portion of the shares held by minority shareholders. The scheme provided that the shares held by these shareholders would be extinguished in exchange for payment of a specified amount per share.
Bharti Telecom Limited functions as the promoter holding company of Bharti Airtel. The company initiated the capital reduction exercise under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The proposal involved cancelling a specified number of equity shares held by certain minority shareholders representing a small percentage of the overall shareholding of the company. In exchange for the cancellation of these shares, the affected shareholders were offered monetary compensation.
The proposal for reduction of capital was placed before the shareholders of the company and was approved through a special resolution. A substantial majority of the shareholders voted in favour of the proposal. After the resolution was passed, the company approached the National Company Law Tribunal seeking its approval for the reduction of share capital as required under the statutory framework governing such corporate actions.
The National Company Law Tribunal considered the proposal and approved the scheme. However, the tribunal made certain modifications with regard to the payment that was to be made to the minority shareholders whose shares were proposed to be cancelled. The tribunal directed that the shareholders should receive a higher amount per share and also held that dividend distribution tax should not be deducted from the amount payable to them.
Following the decision of the tribunal, certain shareholders filed appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. They challenged the approval granted to the capital reduction scheme and raised objections regarding the valuation of the shares and the procedure followed by the company in implementing the scheme. According to the appellants, the valuation offered to minority shareholders was not fair and the process adopted by the company did not adequately protect the interests of minority shareholders.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal examined the appeals and ultimately dismissed them. The appellate tribunal upheld the capital reduction scheme and affirmed the order of the National Company Law Tribunal that had sanctioned the proposal. The bench of the appellate tribunal that delivered this decision consisted of one judicial member and two technical members, and the decision was unanimous.
After the dismissal of their appeals, the minority shareholders approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the appellate tribunal. In addition to reiterating their objections regarding the fairness of the valuation and the process followed by the company, the appellants also raised a challenge to the validity of the order passed by the appellate tribunal on the ground of the composition of the bench.
The appellants contended that the bench of the appellate tribunal was improperly constituted because it contained a majority of technical members. They argued that tribunals performing judicial functions should have a majority of judicial members to ensure that such functions are exercised by persons with appropriate judicial training and expertise. The appellants relied on earlier judicial decisions that had examined the composition of tribunals and emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial predominance in bodies exercising adjudicatory powers.
The Supreme Court examined these submissions and rejected the argument that the order of the appellate tribunal was invalid due to the presence of a majority of technical members on the bench. The Court explained that the earlier judgments relied upon by the appellants had been delivered in the context of provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956 and related to the framework governing tribunals under that earlier statute.
The Court observed that the Companies Act, 1956 had since been replaced by the Companies Act, 2013, which provides a different statutory framework governing the constitution and functioning of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Under the present law, the relevant provisions dealing with the composition of benches are contained in Sections 418A and 419 of the Companies Act, 2013.
After examining these provisions, the Court noted that the law requires that a bench of the appellate tribunal must include at least one judicial member. However, the statute does not require that judicial members must form the majority of the bench. The Court emphasized that the legislative requirement is satisfied so long as a judicial member is present as part of the bench that hears and decides the matter.
The Court further noted that in the present case the bench of the appellate tribunal included one judicial member along with two technical members and that the bench was presided over by the judicial member. The decision delivered by the bench was unanimous. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the composition of the bench was consistent with the requirements laid down under the Companies Act, 2013.
Having rejected the challenge to the composition of the appellate tribunal bench, the Supreme Court proceeded to consider the other issues raised by the appellants in relation to the capital reduction scheme. After examining the material placed before it and the reasoning adopted by the tribunals, the Court found no reason to interfere with the decisions that had approved the capital reduction proposal.
The Supreme Court therefore upheld the orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal approving the capital reduction scheme proposed by Bharti Telecom Limited. Through this decision, the Court clarified that an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that the bench delivering the decision consisted of more technical members than judicial members, so long as the statutory requirement of the presence of a judicial member is satisfied.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.