Vijay Kumar Sekhri And Others vs Tinna Overseas Ltd. & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 665 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#14.
+                CO.A.(SB) No. 77 of 2011

        VIJAY KUMAR SEKHRI AND OTHERS               ..... Appellants
                     Through: Mr. Manish Jain and Mr. Akur Garg,
                     Advocates.

                                  versus

        TINNA OVERSEAS LTD. & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Karan Gupta and
                     Mr. Akansha Srivastava, Advocates.

                                           AND
#15.
+                                 CO.A.(SB) No. 81 of 2011

        BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHRI                     ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Karan Gupta and
                    Mr. Akansha Srivastava, Advocates.

                                  versus

        VIJAY KUMAR SEKHRI AND ORS.               ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Manish Jain and Mr. Akur Garg,
                     Advocates.


        CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

                                    ORDER

% 12.02.2013

1. These two appeals under Section 10 (F) of the Companies Act, 1956

('Act') are directed against an order dated 16th September 2011 passed by the

Company Law Board ('CLB') in an application filed by Mr. Vijay Kumar

Sekhri and seven others (hereafter the 'VKS Group') [Appellants in Co.A.

(SB) No. 77 of 2011] for execution of a consent order dated 9th June 2009

passed by the CLB in C.P. No. 17 (ND) of 2008 filed by the VKS Group

against Mr. Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri and others (hereafter the 'BKS Group')

[Appellant in Co.A. (SB) 81 of 2011].

2. The background to the present appeals is that the Tinna Group of

Companies are controlled and managed by the Sekhri family. The disputes

that arose between the family members, led to the filing of Company Petition

No. 17 of 2008 by the VKS Group against BKS Group under Sections 397

and 398 of the Act in the CLB. By an order dated 5th January 2009 in the

said petition the CLB recorded the broad terms of the family settlement inter

alia as under:

"4. Bhupinder will take immediate steps to pass necessary resolution appointing Vijay and Anil as directors of Tinna Agro and Tinna Oil as the nominees of Tinna Group.

5. Till such time the remuneration for Vijay and Anil is fixed by Tinna Oil and Tinna Agro, Bhupinder will pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs per month jointly for both of them.

6. Tinna Overseas will immediately transfer two Mercedes, one BMW, one Honda Accord, one Honda CRV to Vijay and Anil and who will undertake to pay the balance instalments of car loans, if any.

7. It has also been agreed that transfer of management of

companies, transfer of shares and loans if any between the companies, all have been taken into account in the settlement and the entire settlement is on a zero value basis.

8. The parties have also agreed that the terms agreed before me today is the last and final settlement superseding all other prior oral or written agreements between the parties in regard to the settlement....

9. The parties shall prepare a memo of family settlement incorporating the above terms and submit the same to this Board on 15.1.2009 at 4.00 p.m."

3. Pursuant to the above order the parties entered into a memorandum of

family settlement ('MoFS') dated 27th March 2009. It was agreed that the

MoFS would come into effect from 5th January 2009 (effective date). The

assets, shares, interest and business allocated to the BKS Group from the

effective date were set out in Schedule-I. Likewise, the assets, shares,

interest and business allocated to the VKS Group were set out in Schedule-II

to the MoFS. Inter alia, it was agreed that Tinna Overseas Limited ('TOL'),

Tinna Agro Ventures Limited ('TAVL'), and Pratham Road Technologies

Ltd. ('PRTL') would come to the share of the BKS Group whereas Tinna

Finex Limited ('TFL'), Duraflex Services and Construction Technologies

Limited ('Duraflex'), Vedanta Overseas Limited ('VOL') came to the share

of VKS Group.

4. Schedule-I to the MoFS set out the manner in which 100% of the shares

held by TOL and Tinna Agro Industries Ltd. ('TAIL') would be transferred

to the VKS Group. It was stated that "100% of such TAIL Shareholding

held by TOL shall be transferred by BKS Group in favour of:

(i) Vijay Sekhri; and (ii) Anil Sekhri or their nominee

(s); to be held by them equally - i.e. 50% each of such TAIL Shareholding.

Further, till:

(i) such time as the VKS Group continues to retain and hold the TAIL Shareholding; or

(ii) TAIL/TOCL decides on the remuneration of Vijay Sekhri and Anil Sekhri;

Whichever is earlier, TOL will pay a sum of INR 500,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand only) per month jointly to Vijay Sekhri and Anil Sekhri."

5. Following the MoFS, a scheme of arrangement ('SoA') was signed on 17th

May 2009. Relevant to the present appeals was Clause 3.2 of the SoA which

read as under:

"3.2 Joint Venture:

Group A, B1 and B2 shall jointly address a letter to M/s. Archer Daniel Midland (ADM), Joint Venture Partner of TOCL informing them of resignation of Mr. Gaurav Sekhri as Director and nomination of Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri as Director on the Board of TOCL. Until TOCL or TAIL fixes the remuneration of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri, TOL shall continue to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- per month each to Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri, subject to the Group B1 and B2 continuing to hold their existing

shareholdings in TAIL and TOCL. Hereon, Group A shall have no further interference in the management of the said Joint Venture."

6. Group A in the above clause meant the BKS Group, Group B1 the VKS

Group and Group B2 the group represented by Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri. On

the basis of the MoFS and the SoA, the CLB passed a consent order on 9th

June 2009 in which, inter alia, it was recorded as under:

"4. Till such time as Tinna Oil and Chemicals Ltd. and Tinna Agro Industries Ltd. fixes the remuneration of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri, TOL shall continue to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- per month each to Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Sekhri subject to the VKS group continuing to hold their existing shareholding in the aforesaid two companies. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri shall make endeavours to have their respective remuneration fixed by the aforesaid two companies as soon as possible."

7. It is stated by the VKS Group that while the BKS Group paid salaries to

Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri as per the agreed terms

from 5th January to 9th June 2009, it stopped paying salary to the said persons

after the consent decree was passed. Consequently, an application was filed

in July 2009 by the BKS Group in which the CLB passed the following order

on 14th July 2009:

"Heard on the application. It has been agreed by the Counsel that the Company would pay to the petitioners an amount of Rs. 2.5 Lacs each which has become due

within a week alongwith a statement of expenditure incurred by the Company on behalf of the petitioners and that the petitioners will reimburse the same within a week of receipt of the arrears of the Rs. 2.5 Lacs each. The Company will continue to pay the said amount for another two months.

I also direct that appointment the petitioners as whole time directors with remuneration should be decided by M/s Tinna Oil and Tinna Agro latest by 31.08.2009."

8. Thereafter salaries were paid by the BKS Group to the said two Directors

for the months of July and August 2009. It is stated that the BKS Group

however did not appoint the said two persons as full time Directors and also

refused to pay them the salaries thereafter. It is further contended by the

VKS Group that due to interference and pressure by the BKS Group as well

as the ADM Group, the VKS Group was forced to sell their entire equity of

25% in TOCL and TAIL to ADM Group on 15th July 2011. With the said

event, the liability of the BKS Group to pay the monthly salary of Rs.5 lakhs

to Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr.Anil Kumar Sekhri came to an end. It is

contended by the VKS Group that till that date the BKS Group was liable to

pay the said two Directors Rs.1,12,50,000 being the salary payable from 1st

September 2009 to 15th July 2011.

9. Several applications including a contempt petition were filed in the CLB.

By the impugned order dated 16th September 2011, these applications were

disposed of by the CLB holding that there was a legitimate expectation of

the VKS Group that either TOCL/TAIL should fix their remuneration and

till such time the BKS Group would pay both Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and

Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri Rs.2,50,000 each per month. Since no remuneration

had been fixed by TOCL/TAIL, the BKS Group was liable to pay them

salaries. The CLB negatived the plea of the BKS Group that the decision

taken at the board meeting held on 12th August 2009 that Mr. Vijay Kumar

Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar Sekhri were not entitled to salary satisfied the

requirement of the terms of the MoFS and that once such a decision was

taken, no further sum by way of salary was payable to either of the said

persons. The CLB held that when the said persons were not even appointed

as Directors then there was no question of fixing their salary as zero. In para

23 of the impugned order it was concluded by the CLB as under:

"23. One cannot lose sight of the consent terms. Once a consent always a consent. Consent terms are binding on the parties and are legally enforceable. In this view of the matter and keeping the changed circumstances of this case the Bhupinder Sekhri group cannot be obligated to pay remuneration/salaries to the Petitioners indefinitely. To do substantial justice between the parties it is hereby directed that the Bhupinder Sekhri group shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 50 lakhs, after adjusting the amounts due, to the Petitioners towards remuneration/salaries for the intervening period within two months of receipt of this order."

10. The VKS Group is aggrieved by the impugned order inasmuch as it has

not granted them the relief of payment of salary till 15th July 2011, i.e, the

date on which they ceased to be the shareholders in TOCL and TAIL. In

other words as against over Rs.1.12 crores claimed by the VKS Group the

CLB has directed the BKS Group to pay the two Directors only Rs.50 lakhs.

11. The BKS Group is also aggrieved by the order of the CLB to the extent

that it has required the BKS Group to pay VKS Group a sum of Rs.50 lakhs

when according to the BKS Group nothing is owed to the VKS Group. In

fact a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs is claimed as owing to the BKS Group by the

VKS Group. It is pointed out that this was acknowledged by the CLB when

it passed the following order on 18th October 2011 in an application filed by

the BKS Group seeking clarification of the impugned order dated 16th

September 2011:

"CA No. 527/11 mentioned. Respondents have not attended despite notice. Heard on CA No.527/11. It is hereby clarified that in Para 23 of CLB's order dated 16.9.2011 a direction is contained to the Bhupinder Sekhri Group to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 50 lakhs, after adjusting the amounts due, to the Petitioner towards remuneration/salaries....." is intended to include adjustment of amounts receivable from the Petitioner in CP No.17(ND) 08 i.e. Rs. 50 lakhs payable by the Petitioners to the Respondents as contained in Para 8 at Page 3 of the CLB's order dated 22.12.2009 meaning thereby that no amounts remain actually payable to the

Petitioners. Order dasti. Applicants to serve this order on the Petitioner in CP No.17(ND/08."

12. What is significant is that the above order dated 18th October 2011 has

not been challenged either by the VKS Group or the BKS Group. Both the

present appeals are only against the order dated 16th September 2011 of the

CLB. Notice was issued by this Court on 16th November 2011 in Co. A. (SB)

No. 77 of 2011 filed by the VKS Group and on 25th November 2011 in Co.

A. (SB) No. 81 of 2011 filed by the BKS Group. No interim order was

passed in either appeal.

13. With the consent of both parties, the appeals were finally heard. Mr.

Manish Jain, learned counsel appeared for VKS Group and Mr. Vivek Kohli,

learned counsel appeared for BKS Group.

14. The central question to be decided by the CLB was whether in terms of

Schedule-I of the MoFS, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar

Sekhri were entitled to remuneration of Rs.5 lakhs per month jointly till 15th

July 2011, i.e., the date on which they ceased to be the shareholders in TAIL.

15. Both in the MoFS as well as in the order dated 9th June 2009 passed by

the CLB, it was stated that Mr. Vijay Kumar Sekhri and Mr. Anil Kumar

Sekhri would be paid Rs.2,50,000 each per month by TOCL subject to two

conditions: one, as long as they continued holding shares in TAIL and TOCL

and two, till such time their respective remuneration was fixed by TAIL and

TOCL. There was no question, therefore, of their receiving remuneration in

perpetuity.

16. In the impugned order the CLB has failed to address the issue whether as

a result of the decision of the Board of Directors ('BoD') on 12th August

2009 not to pay any remuneration to the two directors, the liability of the

BKS Group to pay them a total salary of Rs.5 lakhs per month came to an

end. Instead the CLB has, "to do substantial justice between the parties" and

without explaining the basis, directed that the BKS Group should pay Rs.50

lakhs to the VKS Group. To this extent both parties are justified in having a

grievance against the said order dated 16th September 2011 passed by the

CLB.

17. However, what is significant is that neither party has filed an appeal

against the subsequent order dated 18th October 2011 passed by the CLB.

By the said order, passed at the instance of BKS Group, the CLB has held

that nothing is payable by either group to the other. Both the BKS and the

VKS Groups appear to have accepted the said order as neither has

challenged it. The order dated 16th September 2011 passed by the CLB

should be held to have merged with the subsequent order dated 18th October

2011. The BKS Group at the stage of filing the application for clarification

did not question the order dated 16th September 2011 to the extent it required

them to pay the VKS Group Rs. 50 lakhs. The BKS Group only sought a

clarification that in view of the liability of the VKS Group to pay it a like

sum, the BKS Group owed nothing to the VKS Group. Therefore, having

invited the order dated 18th October 2011 of the CLB on its application, and

not questioning the said order, the BKS Group is estopped from challenging

the order dated 16th September 2011 which has merged with the subsequent

order dated 18th October 2011 of the CLB.

18. As far as VKS Group is concerned, it is in a position where it has to pay

nothing to the BKS Group as a result of the order dated 18th October 2011

which it has accepted. It has also thereby implicitly accepted that it owes the

BKS Group Rs. 50 lakhs. It has thereby accepted that after adjustment of the

said sum, the BKS Group owes the VKS Group nothing.

19. In other words, with the order dated 18th October 2011 of the CLB

attaining finality, the challenge by both the VKS and BKS Groups to the

impugned order dated 16th September 2011 of the CLB has been rendered

infructuous. Both groups have accepted that neither owes the other anything

after the order dated 18th October 2011 of the CLB. Consequently, there is

no necessity for the Court to examine the correctness of the impugned order

dated 16th September 2011 of the CLB.

20. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed, but in the facts and

circumstances of the case, with no order as to costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J FEBRUARY 12, 2013 dn