Five close school friends Deepanjan, Prosenjit, Srabani, Chandranath and Lipika having brilliant academic record completed thirty years of service in their respective organisations and after retirement decided to do some
CS Executive · Company Law and Practice · PYQS · December 2025
Five close school friends Deepanjan, Prosenjit, Srabani, Chandranath and Lipika having brilliant academic record completed thirty years of service in their respective organisations and after retirement decided to do something together which they were all passionate about throughout their life. With this motive they incorporated a private limited company in June, 2017 named Advanced Engineering Advisory Solutions Private Ltd. (AEASPL) to provide engineering advisory services to entities operating in fertiliser and chemical industry. The registered office of the company is situated in Pune. In order to expand the operations, they gradually converted the private limited company into public limited company in May, 2021. As on date there are six directors of which Deepanjan is Executive Director and Srabani the Managing Director. Lipika has been appointed as Chief Executive Officer in last year. In February, 2023 the company purchased seventy percent equity shares of Bright Technologies Private Ltd. (BTPL), a Hyderabad based company, which had substantial market share in providing consulting engineering services and was recording consistent good profits for last few years. You have been appointed as a Company Secretary in the company two months ago. Ahead of the board meeting in December, 2025, Deepanjan, Srabani and Lipika has placed the following case situations before you for noting, perusal and advice. Case I: The company AEASPL has 10% preference share capital shown in its balance sheet. The company defaulted in repayment of interest on term loan taken from DHFC Bank (the Bank) though the principal part was duly paid in time. The Bank directed the company not to pay dividend to the shareholders including the preference shareholders. Due to such communication from the Bank the company failed to distribute the dividend on preference shares within the statutory time limit. Case II: The company had closed its register of members in May, August and October in the year 2025 for twelve, ten and fifteen days respectively for corporate actions. The Board of Directors is considering closing the register in December, 2015 for another fourteen days for issue of bonus shares. Case III: AEASPL has received a request from Jagdish, one of the legal representatives of a deceased member Jishu for transmission of 500 equity shares. In the meanwhile, Jesmine, spouse of Jishu, being a joint holder of shares along with Jishu also approached the company for transmission of those 500 equity shares in her favour. Case IV: Deepanjan updated his colleagues that BCD Co., a LLP of Audit Firm is the present statutory auditor of Bright Technologies Private Ltd. (BTPL). The audit fee charged by them is ₹85,000. The Board of Directors of AEASPL resolved to assign investment advisory services to BCD & Co. at a fee of ₹50,000. Pulak, a secretarial advisor of the company objected to this resolution stating it is invalid. Case V: The shareholders of AEASPL had passed a special resolution in their meeting held on 29th August, 2025 altering its articles of association empowering the directors to require any shareholder who is doing competing business with the company's business to transfer his shares as directed by the Board. Pradip, a shareholder carrying on a competing business, challenged the validity of the alteration of articles. Based on the above information and referring to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 answer the following: As regards to Case V, decide, whether Pradip will succeed in challenging the amendment in articles of association of the company.
Answer & Explanation:
The alternation of Articles of Association is valid. A change in Articles made bonafide for the benefit of the company as a whole is justified. In this case, the directors were empowered to change the Articles of Association to ask a shareholder to transfer his shares in case he was found to be carrying on a business in competition with that of the company. It is possible for a person to take advantage in a competing business, of facts known to him or which he may know because of his shareholding in the company. Such a member must be eliminated from the group of membership in the interests of the company as a company and therefore an alteration of Articles to this effect is valid. The facts of the given problem are similar to the facts of a decided English case of Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co Ltd [1920] in which Court held that alteration was valid in as much as it was made bonafide and in the interest of the company as a whole. Hence, in the given case, shareholder Pradip will not succeed.
Topics: Memorandum and Articles of Association
Related Questions in this Topic
- Draft a specimen of minutes of a board meeting of Que Private Ltd. in which the agenda item for alteration of object cla...
- Rohit has applied to the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) for inclusion of his name in the data bank of inde...
- Shantilal, a customer of Cotton Textile Pvt. Ltd. intends to apply in writing to the company for inspection of its lates...
- Chairman of the CSR Committee.
- Number of CSR Committee Meetings.