Thursday, 25 January 2018

For invocation of provisions of Sec 2(22)(e), requirement of a registered shareholder who is also required to be beneficial owner, is mutually contradictory; Issue referred to Larger Bench of Supreme Court

THE issue is - Whether, for the invocation of provisions of Sec 2(22)(e), the requirement of a registered shareholder who is also needed to be a beneficial owner of shares, is mutually contradictory. YES is the answer and the question of law is referred to the Larger Bench.
Facts of the case   


The Assessee is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Mr. Naresh Goyal, Mr. Surinder Goyal and M/s Jet Enterprises Private Limited having a profit sharing ratio of 35%, 15% and 50% respectively. The Assessee firm had taken a loan of Rs. 28,52,41,516/- from M/s Jetair Private Limited, New Delhi. In this Company, the Assessee subscribed to the equity capital in the name of two of its partners, namely, Mr. Naresh Goyal and Mr. Surinder Goyal totaling 48.19 per cent of the total shareholding. Thus Mr. Naresh Goyal and Mr. Surinder Goyal are shareholders on the Company's register as members of the Company. They held the shares for and on behalf of the firm, which happened to be the beneficial shareholder

The question before the Apex Court is - whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Act gets attracted inasmuch as a loan has been made to a shareholder, who after the amendment, is a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power in the Company, and whether the loan is made to any concern in which such shareholder is a partner and in which he has a substantial interest, which is defined as being an interest of 20% or more of the share of the profits of the firm.
Having heard the parties, the Apex Court held that,
++ the whole object of the amended provision would be stultified if the Division Bench judgment were to be followed. Ankitech’s case, in stating that no change was made by introducing the deeming fiction insofar as the expression “shareholder” is concerned is, according to us, wrongly decided. The whole object of the provision is clear from the Explanatory memorandum and the literal language of the newly inserted definition clause which is to get over the two judgments of this Court. This is why “shareholder” now, post amendment, has only to be a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. One cannot be a registered owner and beneficial owner in the sense of a beneficiary of a trust or otherwise at the same time;

++ it is clear therefore that the moment there is a shareholder, who need not necessarily be a member of the Company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the Section gets attracted without more. To state, therefore, that two conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that the shareholder must first be a registered shareholder and thereafter, also be a beneficial owner is not only mutually contradictory but is plainly incorrect. Also, what is important is the addition, by way of amendment, of such beneficial owner holding not less than 10% of voting power. This is another indicator that the amendment speaks only of a beneficial shareholder who can compel the registered owner to vote in a particular way, as has been held in a catena of decisions starting from Mathalone vs. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd., [1954] SCR 117.
++ this being the case, we are prima facie of the view that the Ankitech judgment itself requires to be reconsidered, and this being so, without going into other questions that may arise, including whether the facts of the present case would fit the second limb of the amended definition clause, we place these appeals before the Chief Justice of India in order to constitute an appropriate Bench of three Judges in order to have a relook at the entire question.

No comments: