controversy on section 111a of the companies act, 1956

HEDGE-SQUARE CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Address: Impress, 111A, Currimji Compound, M. G. Road, Fort, Opp. Mumbai University, Mumbai – 400 001.

1

Controversy on Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956

I. ISSUES:

1.1 Whether Right of First Refusal (ROFR) agreements, Tag along and Drag along

rights are enforceable under law and in compliance with section 111A of the

Companies Act, 1956?

II. ANALYSIS:

2.1 ROFR are agreements entered between promoters and investors such as PE funds

etc. which mandates investor to offer its shares to the promoters for making exit

of shares. It can sell it to the third party, if promoters refuse to take those shares.

It’s also called preemption rights.

2.2 Tag along rights or Co-sale rights are contractual obligation used to protect a

minority shareholder (usually in a venture capital deal). If a majority shareholder

sells his or her stake, then the minority shareholder has the right to join the

transaction and sell his or her minority stake in the company.

2.3 Drags along rights are rights that enable a majority shareholder to force a minority

shareholder to join in the sale of a company. The majority owner doing the

dragging must give the minority shareholder the same price, terms, and conditions

as any other seller.

2.4 Legislative History:

(a) Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, is perhaps the most significant

unresolved controversy in contemporary Indian Corporate Law. Section


2

111A of the Companies writes that “…..Subject to the provisions of this

section, the shares or debentures and any interest therein of a company

shall be freely transferable….”. The section speaks about free transferability

of the shares and debentures of the Public Limited Company.

(b) Though ROFRs (Right of First Refusal) are commonly used across India Inc,

their legal validity has always been in question. Several High Court

Judgments have held ROFRs to be violative of the Companies Act, 1956,

(Act), on the basis of provisions of section 111A of the Act, which states that

all shares and debentures shall be freely transferable.

(c) This subject got controversial since the decision in Rangarajan. The

defendant in this case was a Private Limited Company. In this case Supreme

Court held that shares are “freely transferable” and that “a private

agreement that imposes … restrictions not stipulated in the articles of

association…” is “not binding either on the shareholders or on the

company”.

(d) The Year of 1996 is the enactment year of DIP guidelines and simultaneously

for section 111A in the Companies Act, 1956.

(e) In 1999 the Gujarat High Court heard Mafatlal, where the defendant was

a public limited company. In this case it was pointed out that the “ratio in

the case of V.B. Rangarajan will apply with much greater force to the case of

a public company”. After year 1999 there were some high court decisions

added to the controversies.

(f) One of the interesting judgments is of the Bombay High Court judgment

in Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Ltd. v. Bajaj Auto

Ltd. That judgment had ruled that any pre-emptive rights over shares in


3

public limited companies were illegal in view of the principle of “free

transferability” enshrined in Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. Still

after this judgment the debate on enforceability of terms of shareholder

agreements governing public limited companies was continued.

2.5 Recent position:

(a) The path of this controversies got new turn when in September, 2010,

judgment by a divisional bench of the Bombay High Court in case of

Messer Holdings reversed its earlier judgment in Bajaj Auto Ltd.

[referred above in Pt. 2.4(f)] and uphold that agreements like ROFR, tag

along and drag along between promoters and strategic investors, are not

contrary to the provisions of the section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956.

The judgment also goes on to suggest that it is not mandatory for the

Company to be a party to such an agreement relating to share transfer

restrictions and it is not necessary to incorporate share transfer restrictions in

the articles of association of the Company.

(b) The Dispute was on Section 111A of the Act, which held that shares of

public companies must be freely transferable but was interpreted to mean

that promoters can not enter in to any agreements with strategic investors

that could potentially restrict free transferability of shares.

(c) In paragraph 55, of above judgment it was stated that :

…“freely transferable” in Section 111A does not

mean that the shareholder cannot enter in to consensual arrangement/

agreement with the third party (proposed transferee) in relation to his

specific shares If the company wants to even prohibit that right of the

shareholders, may have to provide for an express condition in the Articles of

Association or in the Act and Rules, as the case may be, in that behalf …”


4

2.6 Comments:

(a) This division bench has gone into the intent of 111A. The division bench has

rightly held now that when shares are freely transferable doesn’t mean that the

shareholders lose the right to dispose off or deal with the shares in the manner

in which they like.

(b) The Bench has explained the intent that the section 111A was never

incorporated to take away the rights of the shareholders to dispose, which is

one of the bundle of rights enjoyed by any owner of any movable property.

ROFR and other such agreements are important exit provisions for any

financial or strategic investor.

(c) This may not be the last word because this controversy may knock the doors

of the higher authority but certainly it’s a division bench judgment and is the

only judgment in the case of a public companies of 111 (A) therefore in that

sense it certainly it sets aside the controversy which was raised right from the

beginning of Rangarajan from 1992.

Hemant Shah Hedge-Square Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. 111A, Impress, Currimji Compound, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Contact: +91 - 9870551611 Email: [email protected] Website: www.hedge.square.com

This material and the information contained herein prepared by Hedge-Square Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. (HSQ), is intended to provide general information on a particular subject or subjects and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s). None of HSQ’s partners or their related entities is, by means of this material, rendering professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that might affect your personal finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the HSQ Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this material.

© 2011 Hedge-Square Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.

controversy on section 111a of the companies act, 1956

Economy & Finance