The Bombay High Court recently pronounced its judgment in Madhu Ashok Kapur and Ors. v. Rana Kapoor and Ors., providing some relief in the two year long battle between Yes Bank and Madhu Kapur, the widow of co-founder Ashok Kapur. Ashok Kapur and the other co-founder, Rana Kapoor, enjoyed certain privileges in the management of Yes Bank. The dispute arose when Madhu Kapur and the other Plaintiffs, following Ashok Kapur's demise, were denied these rights. The Court first considered whether the said rights were hereditary. It agreed with the Plaintiffs that, since shares include proprietary rights, the participatory rights given in the articles which the founders enjoyed are in the nature of moveable property. Moreover, the articles contained express provisions pursuant to which any rights that Ashok Kapur had would pass on to his heirs and legal representatives. Hence, the Court held that the rights were not personal but were heritable and assignable.
In relation to the right of appointment of directors to the board of Yes Bank, the Court construed the right to recommend directors, as given in the articles, to mean a right to nominate, not just a right to suggest. Had it been a mere right to suggest, it would not have been specifically provided for in the articles as all members of a company have the very same right under the Companies Act, 2013. Further, the Court observed that the articles indicated that Ashok Kapur and Rana Kapoor were to act together. Hence, neither the Plaintiffs nor Rana Kapoor's group had the right to make a unilateral nomination to the exclusion of the other. Based on these findings, the Court found the past appointment of seven individual directors to be invalid and also rejected the unilateral nomination of Ashok Kapur's daughter. Further, the court rejected the Plaintiffs' content ion that Rana Kapoor ' s appointment as the Managing Director was a related party transaction by observing that it was made in the ordinary course of business and was an arms-length transaction.
This decision comes at a time when corporate governance is being given significant prominence and companies must stay clear of deviations from the provisions within their articles. If not, courts may go to the extent of invalidating the appointment of directors even if it may hamper the operations of the company.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
