Comfort Hosiery Ltd. is a listed entity engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of innerwear for all the age group of people. The company has paid-up equity capital of ₹ 25 crore. In the year 2016, the compa
CS Professional · Resolution of Corporate Disputes, Non-Compliances & Remedies · PYQS · June 2023
Comfort Hosiery Ltd. is a listed entity engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of innerwear for all the age group of people. The company has paid-up equity capital of ₹ 25 crore. In the year 2016, the company issued 10% Redeemable Preference Shares to the tune of ₹ 5 crore. The dividend at the rate of 10% was payable on the preference shares, but due to insufficiency of profits, the company did not pay dividends for the Financial Years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. For the Financial Year ended on 31st March, 2022, the General Meeting of the shareholders was called on 5th August, 2022. The notices for the General Meeting was issued to equity shareholders as well as to the preference shareholders. During the course of the meeting, the preference shareholders averred that they were also entitled to vote on every resolution placed before the shareholders. The Chairman of the Meeting informed the shareholders that only the equity shareholders can vote on every resolution placed in the meeting and the preference shareholders are not entitled to vote. Is the Chairman's contention correct? Refer to relevant provisions of the Company Act, 2013.
Answer & Explanation:
According to Section 47(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 , every member of a company limited by shares and holding any preference share capital therein shall, in respect of such capital, have a right to vote only on resolutions placed before the company which directly affect the rights attached to his preference shares and, any resolution for the winding up of the company or for the repayment or reduction of its equity or preference share capital. His voting right on a poll shall be in proportion to his share in the paid-up preference share capital of the company. Further, the second proviso to Section 47(2) of the Act states that where the dividend in respect of a class of preference shares has not been paid for a period of two years or more, such class of preference shareholders shall have a right to vote on all the resolutions placed before the company. In the given situation, Comfort Hosiery Ltd. has not paid dividends to its preference shareholders for three financial years (2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21). Since the dividend has not been paid for a period of two years or more, the preference shareholders are entitled to vote on all the resolutions placed before the company. Hence, the Chairman's contention that only equity shareholders can vote and preference shareholders are not entitled to vote is incorrect .
Topics: Share Capital and Debentures
Related Questions in this Topic
- During the course of Secretarial Audit, it was found that in one of the case of transmission of shares, the company took...
- Raji, was holding 1,10,000 equity shares in Mahanav Industries Ltd. After Raji's death, her legal heir Raman applied for...
- Differentiate between Punishment for False Statement and Punishment for False Evidence under the Companies Act, 2013.
- Mr. P who was a Managing Director of XYZ Ltd, was terminated from the position of Managing Director by virtue of an orde...
- Amit Sinha, commonly known as Sethji, has been accused of certain offenses under the SEBI Act, 1992. SEBI directed him t...