Narayandas Shreeram Somani Vs. The
Sangli Bank Ltd.  INSC 67 (15 March 1965)
15/03/1965 BACHAWAT, R.S.
CITATION: 1966 AIR 170 1965 SCR (3) 777
Indian Companies Act (Act 7 of 1931), s.
91B(1)--Director interested in allotment of
shares--Taking part in meeting--Effect.
Indian Contract Act (9 of 1872), s. 50,
(a)--Advance of loan--If could be by entries
The respondent-Bank was unable to carry on
business after it was promoted, in view of s. 277(1) of the Companies Act,
1913, because 'its subscribed capital was less than half the authorised
capital. In order to comply with the requirements of the section, the directors
decided that they or their nominees would subscribe for a large number of
shares. The first appellant was a director of the Bank and the second appellant
was the firm of the first appellant and his brother. The first appellant,
decided to subscribe for 2000 shaves in the names of 3 ladies of his family, and
the allotments of shares were made at a meeting of directors at which the first
appellant also voted. At that meeting and subsequently various loans were
advanced to the second appellant. A sum of Rs. 100,000 which was shown as a
loan to the brother was later on adjusted by crediting his account with that
item and debiting the account of the first appellant with that amount. The
first appellant executed a promissory note and a letter of pledge for the
amount, and the brother paid off the balance due from him after giving effect
to the credit entry, and that loan account was closed. Suits were filed by the
respondent against the appellants for realization of the sums due from them.
The trial Court dismissed the suits but the High Court decreed them.
In their appeals to this Court the appellants
contended inter alia that: (i) if the vote of the first appellant be not
counted as required by s. 91B(1) of the Act because of his interestedness in
the allotment, there would be no quorum for the meeting and therefore the
allotment of shares to the nominees of the first appellant would be invalid,
and as the consideration for the shares was paid out of the loans, the
appellants would not be liable to repay those loans; (ii) since no cash amount
was paid and no loan advanced by the respondent to the first appellant the suit
to recover the sum of Rs. 100,000 as a loan was not maintainable.
HELD: (i) The allotment of the shares at the
meeting, to the nominees of the first appellant was not void. In view of the
fact that the first appellant was not entitled to vote on the allotment and
after the exclusion of his vote there was no quorum, the allotment was
irregular and the respondent was entitled to avoid it. But, instead of avoiding
the allotment the respondent has chosen to affirm it and so the allotment is
valid and binding on the allottees. [783 E] 778 Moreover, the first appellant
was a party to the resolution allotting shares and dealt with the shares on the
footing that the allottees were the holders with a clear knowledge of all
circumstances, and therefore, was estopped from contending that the allotment
was invalid. [783 F-G] (ii) To support a plea of payment, it is not necessary
to show that cash passed. Illustration (a) to s. 50 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, shows that payment may be made by means of transfer entries in books of
account. [784 E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 801 and 802 of 1962.
Appeals from the judgment and d. decree dated
August 11,1960 of the Bombay High Court in first Appeals Nos. 819, 820 of 1955.
Purshottam Trikamdas, V.J. Jhaveri and S.N.
Andley for the appellants (in both the appeals).
K.H. Bhabha, lqbal Chagla and J.B.
Dadachanji, for the respondent (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. The Bank of Poona Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Company)
now amalgamated with the SangIi Bank, Ltd. was incorporated in 1945. The
Company was promoted by N.G. Parulekar and Murlidhar Chaturbhuj Loya.
The authorised capital of the Company was
Rupees fifty lakhs divided into 50,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100/- each. By
the end of April, 1946, the Company was able to find subscribers for 4,860
shares only. In view of s. 277(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, the
Company was unable to carry on business unless the subscribed capital was not
less than half the authorised capital. In order to comply with the requirements
of s. 277(1), the directors of the Company decided that they or their nominees
would subscribe for a large number of shares. Narayandas Shriram Somani was one
of the directors of the Company. Ramnath Shriram Somani is his brother. They
carried on business in the name of Ramkisan Ramratan Somani. Jivanbai is the
mother of Narayandas and Ramnath Goverjabai is the wife of Narayandas, and
Kamalabai is the wife of Ramnath. Narayandas decided to subscribe for 2000
shares in the names of the three ladies.
At a meeting held on May 25, 1946, the board
of directors of the Company allotted 500 shares to Goverjabai, 500 shares to
Kamalabai and 1000 shares to Jivanbai against three separate applications for
shares signed by them. The applications were accompanied by three separate
hundis dated May 25, 1946 for Rs. 25,000, Rs. 12,500 and Rs. 12,500 drawn by
Narayandas in favour of the Company.. The meeting of May 25, 1946 was attended
by three directors, Murlidhar Loya, D. R,, Nayak and Narayandas. At that
meeting, the directors also sanctioned a 779 loan of Rs. 60,000 to Ramnath. On
May 28, 1946, Ramnath obtained from the Company the loan of Rs. 60,000 against
his promissory note, and a separate loan account No. 1/18 was opened in his
name in the books of the Company. The three hundis were honoured on May 29,
1946. The directors of the Company at a meeting held on June 8, 1946 resolved
to give an overdraft of Rs. 40,000 to Ramnath. A separate overdraft account
L.A./C No. 71 in the name of Ramnath was opened in the books of the Company,
and Ramnath obtained the sanctioned overdraft by a cheque dated June 27, 1946
for Rs. 15,000/- and another cheque dated June 29, 1946 for Rs. 25,000. The
balance of the application and allotment moneys amounting to Rs. 12,500, Rs.
12,500 and Rs. 25,000 in respect of the shares of Goverjabai, Kamalabai and
Jivanbai were paid to the Company on June 22, June 28 and June 29 respectively.
There is reason to believe that the subscription of the 2000 shares was
financed., by the advances to Ramnath.
On December 28, 1948, Ramnath was indebted to
the Company in his loan account for Rs. 65,743-6-6 and in his overdraft account
for Rs. 41,909-10-0. On that date, both accounts were closed, and a new loan
account No. 9 with a debit of Rs. 1,09,500/was opened in the name of Ramnath,
who executed a promissory note. The Reserve Bank of India was pressing the
Company to take steps in respect of the advances to Ramnath. In these
circumstances, Ramnath repaid to the Company Rs. 18,500/- on December 29, 1950
and Rs. 1,500/- on January 2, 1951. At the same time, on January 6, 1951, the
Company gave a new loan of Rs. 20,000/- to Ramkisan Ramratan Somani and
Ramnath, and the borrowers executed a joint and several promissory note in
favour of the Company for the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. In respect of this loan, a separate
loan account was opened in the books of the Company. In his loan'account No. 9,
Ramnath repaid Rs. 1,00,000/- on December 27, 1951 and Rs. 4,198-8-0 on
December 29, 195.1, and as a result of the last payment, the account was
closed. The above sum of.Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid on behalf of Ramnath by
Narayandas, who on the same date obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the
Company. On the same date, Narayandas executed a promissory note for the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/-, a letter of pledge and trust receipt in respect of cloth, saris
etc., valued at Rs. 1,50,000/-, and a separate loan account No. 6/184 in his
name was opened, in the books Of the Company.
In spite of demands, the Company was unable
to realise its dues in respect of the outstanding loans. On March 18, 1954, the
Company instituted Special Suit No. 39 of 1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge,
Senior Division of Poona, against Ramkisan Ramratan Somani and Ramnath for the
recovery of Rs. 22,964-13-0 due from them in respect of their loan account and
the promissory note dated January 6, 1051. The suit was dismissed by the trial
(N) 5SCI-11 780 Court on April 23, 1955, but in First Appeal No. 819 of 1955
preferred. by the Company, the High Court decreed the suit.
Civil Appeal No. 801 of 1962 arises out of
this claim. On April 24, 1954, the Company instituted Special Suit No. 78 of
1954 in the Court of- the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona against
Narayandas for the recovery of, Rs. 1;09,099- 14-4 due from him in respect of
the loan account No. 6/184 and the promissory note dated December 27, 1951. On
April 23, 1955, the trial Court dismissed the suit, 'but in First Appeal No.
820 of 1955 preferred by the Company, the High Court decreed the suit. Civil
Appeal No. 802 of 1962 arises out of this claim.
On behalf of the appellants, Mr. Purushottam
Tricamdas contended' that the allotment of the 2000 shares and the several
loans in the names of Ramnath and Narayandas were not genuine transactions, and
that the parties did not intend that the allottees would be the holders 'of the
shares or that Narayandas and Ramnath would be liable to repay the loans. It is
to be noticed that the plea that the allotment of the 2000 shares was not
intended to be operative, was not sufficiently raised in the pleadings.
Narayandas pleaded in his written statement
that at the time of the purchase of the shares, Loya and Parulekar gave him and
Ramnath the assurance that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- required for the purchase
of the shares would be paid by the Company on interest at 41/2 per cent per
annum and Loya and Parulekar would not demand and recover the amount but they
would sell the shares and credit the amount of the sale proceeds towards the
principal and interest in the loan account and would not allow Narayandas and Ramnath
to suffer loss with regard thereto. Narayandas swore that it was agreed between
him, Parulekar and Loya that he would nominally take the 2000 shares which
would be finally sold to others and he would be out of liability and he and
Ramnath would not repay the loans nor take any benefit thereunder. He also
suggested that he or Ramnath did not repay any moneys out of their own pocket,
and all repayments in the accounts were made out of the moneys received by him
from the Company. At the trial, the Company did not examine either Loya or
Parulekar. It may be that Loya and Parulekar gave some understanding to
Narayandas with regard to the disposal of. the shares, and in view of this
understanding, they subsequently. executed in favour of Narayandas two letters
dated December 27, 1951, whereby Parulekar agreed to buy from him 500 shares
and Loya agreed to buy from him 800 shares. But these assurances, if any, were
given to Narayandas by Parulekar and Loya in their individual capacity and not
as directors, of the Company. There is-no record of any assurance given on
behalf of the Company to;
Narayandas in the minutes of the board
meetings. Narayandas and' his nominees, Goverjabai, Kamalabai and,. Jivanbai
dealt with the shares on the footing that they. were the owners of. the shares
some of the shares were transferred to third parties under transfer 781 deeds
executed by Jivanbai, and the sale proceeds were credited to the loan account
of Narayandas Jivanbai received from the Company all the 1000 shares allotted
to her and executed a receipt dated February 25, 1953. Narayandas obtained from
Loya and Parulekar written undertakings dated December 27, 1951 for the
purchase of 800 and 500 shares respectively. By letter dated June 28, 1954,
Narayandas called upon Parulekar to fulfill his undertaking for the purchase of
500 shares. All these circumstances prove that the allotment of the 2000 shares
was intended to be operative and the allottees were intended to be the holders
of the shares. Ramnath out of his own funds paid several sums of money towards
discharge of his indebtedness in the loan accounts. He paid Rs. 750-4-0 in the
overdraft account towards interest on December 12, 1946 and Rs. 1,484- 7-0 in
the loan account No. 1/18 on April 21, 1947, and we are not satisfied that
these sums were paid out of commission earned by Narayandas from the Company.
Similarly, on December 29, 1951, he paid Rs. 4,198-8-0 in the loan account No.
9 and on January 4, 1954, Rs. 100/- was paid by Ramkisan Ramratan and Ramnath
in their loan account. The loan accounts were secured by promissory notes.
Moreover, the loan account of Narayandas was secured by a trust receipt and a
letter of pledge. Even on March 3, 1953, Narayandas executed a letter in favour
of the Company declaring that he held as security a stock of sarees valued at
Rs. 1,50,000/-. In respect of other loan transactions, the Company charged the
appellants interest at the rate of 6 per cent and those loans were repaid
quickly. But the loan transactions in suit were intended to be of a more
permanent nature, and in order to accommodate Narayandas and Ramnath, the
Company agreed to charge interest at 41/2 per cent. We are satisfied that the
allotment of the 2000 shares was intended to be operative and the allottees
became the owners of the shares. We are also satisfied that the loans to
Ramnath and Narayandas were intended to be operative, and the Company did not
give any assurance to them that. they would not be called upon to repay the
The next contention of Mr. Purushottam
Tricamdas arises in this way. Article 126 of the articles of association of the
Company provides that the directors may determine the quorum necessary for the
transaction of business, and unless and until otherwise determined, three
directors shall be the quorum. The directors did not make any other
determination with regard to quorum, and at all material times, a quorum of
three was required for a directors' meeting. The board meeting of May 25, 1946
was attended by three directors only, namely, M. C. Loya, D. R. Nayak and
Narayandas. At this meeting, the directors resolved to allot 2000 shares to the
nominees of Narayandas. Narayandas was dearly interested in the allotment of
the shares. Section 91B(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 provided that
"No director shall, as a director, 782 vote on any contract or arrangement
in which he is either directly or indirectly concerned or interested nor shall
his presence count for the purpose of forming a quorum at the time of any such
vote; and if he does so vote, the vote shall not be counted". The Poona
Bank, Ltd. was a public company, and s. 91B(1) applied to its directors.
Narayandas, therefore, ought not to have.
voted at the meeting of May 25, 1946. If his vote is excluded, there was no
quorum for the meeting. Mr. Purushottam Tricamdas, therefore, contended that
the allotment of 2000 shares to the nominees of Narayandas at this meeting was
invalid and no title passed to the allottees in respect of the shares, and in
the circumstances, there was a total failure of the consideration paid for the
shares, and as the consideration was paid out of the loans, the appellants are
not liable to repay the same.
Now, a director of a company stands in a
fiduciary position towards the company and is bound to protect its interests.
For long, it has been an established rule of equity that he must not place
himself in a position in which his personal interest conflicts with his duty,
and unless authorised by the company's articles, he must not vote as a director
on any contract or arrangement in which he is directly or indirectly
interested. Standard articles give effect to this rule of equity. See Palmer's
Company Precedents, 17th Edn, Part I, p. 553. If he votes in such a case, his
vote would not be counted, and his presence would not count towards the quorum,
that is to say, the minimum number fixed for the transaction of business by a
board meeting, for a quorum must be a disinterested quorum, and must be
comprised of directors who are entitled to vote on the particular matter before
the meeting. See In re. Yuill v. Greymouth Point Elizabeth Railway and Coal
Company, LimitedC). If an interested director votes and without his vote being
counted there is no quorum, the meeting is irregular, and the contract
sanctioned at the meeting is voidable by the company against the director and
any other contracting party who has notice of the irregularity, see Transvaal
Lands Company v. New Belgium (Transvaal) Land and Development CompanyC); but
the company may waive the irregularity and affirm the transaction. The matter
is put succinctly by Gore-Browne in Handbook on Joint Stock Companies, 41st
Edn., p. 363 thus:
"According to the well-established rule
that an agent cannot act on behalf of his principal in a matter in which the agent
has a conflicting interest or duty, directors are precluded from taking part in
any resolution under which they take a benefit or which adopts a contract that
concerns them unless the Articles authorises their doing so. It must be here
noted that if interested directors take part in any transaction there is an
irregularity (1)  1 ch. 32. (2)  2 Ch.
783 which renders the transaction voidable by
the company as against the directors and any persons who have knowledge of the
Section 91 B embodied the existing rule of
equity in the form of a statutory provision. In Pratt (Bombay) Ltd. v.M.T.
Ltd. and Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Pratt
(Bombay) Ltd.(1), Sir George Rankin observed that the section is a concise
statement of the general rule of equity explained in the Transvaal Lands
Company's caseC), and he pointed out that the impugned transactions on which
the interested directors had voted, were voidable by the official liquidator of
the company. The voting by the interested director, of itself, does not
invalidate the contract. The effect of s. 9lB is that the vote of the
interested director must be excluded, and if as a result of such exclusion
there is no quorum, the resolution sanctioning the contract is irregular and
the contract is liable to be avoided by the company against the directors and
any other contracting party having notice of the irregularity. Section 9lB is
meant for the protection of the company, and the company may, if it chooses,
waive the irregularity and affirm the contract.
We think that the allotment of the 2000
shares to the nominees of Narayandas in the meeting of the directors of the
company held on May 25, 1946 was not void. In view of the fact that Narayandas
was not entitled to vote on the allotment and after exclusion of his vote there
was no quorum, the allotment was irregular, and the Company was entitled to
avoid the. allotment. Instead of avoiding the allotment, the Company has chosen
to affirm it. The allotment is, therefore, valid and binding on the allottees.
Moreover, Narayandas cannot be heard to say
that there was no valid allotment of the shares. For the purpose of satisfying
the requirement of s. 277(I) it was necessary to allot the shares, and he
allowed the Company to commence business on the footing that the shares had
He was a director of the Company and a party
to the resolution allotting the shares. He dealt with the shares on the footing
that the allottees were the holders of the shares with a clear knowledge of the
circumstances on which he might have rounded his present objection. He cannot
now be heard to say that he was interested in the allotment and could not vote.
Like the director in York-Tramways Company v. Willows(3), he is now estopped
from contending that the allotment is invalid. For all these reasons, we hold
that the allotment is valid, and there is no failure of consideration.
In the plaint in Suit No. 78 of 1954, the
Company pleaded that ,on December 27, 1951 Narayandas took from it on loan a
sum of (1) I.L.R.  Ram. 421.
(2) 2 Ch. 488.
(3)  8 QB.V. 685, 784 Rs. 1,00,000/-
and executed an on-demand promissory note for the amount. Mr. Purushottam
Tricamdas contended that, as a matter of fact, no cash amount was paid and no
loan was advanced by the Company to Narayandas on December 27, 1951, and
consequently, the suit as framed is not maintainable.
Now, at the relevant time, Ramnath was
indebted to the Company for Rs. 1,04,198/- in respect of loan account No. 9.
On December 27, 1951, at the request of
Narayandas, the Company credited Ramnath with Rs. 1,00,000/- in his loan
account and debited Narayandas with Rs. 1,00,000/- in a new loan account opened
in his name. On the same date, Narayandas acknowledged in writing the receipt
of Rs. 1,00,000/- and executed a promissory note for the amount in favour of
the Company. Ramnath took full advantage of the credit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on
payment of the balance of Rs. 4,198-8-0 closed his loan account No. 9. Though
no actual money passed, the two entries in the books of account amounted to
payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Company to Narayandas by way of a loan and
repayment of the same amount by Narayandas to the Company towards discharge of
the indebtedness of Ramnath in the latter's loan account with the Company. The
result was as if the Company had paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash to
Narayandas and then Narayandas had returned the amount to the Company with
instructions to credit it to Ramnath. To support a plea of payment, it is not
necessary to show that cash passed.
Illustration (a) to s. 50 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 shows that payment may be made by means of transfer entries
in books of account. The Company has sufficiently established a payment of Rs.
1,00,000/- by it to Narayandas by way of loan on December 27, 1951.
Mr. Purushottam Tricamdas contended that the
loans to Narayandas and Ramnath were financial assistance by the Company for
the purpose of or in connection with the purchase of its shares by Narayandas
or his nominees, and the loans being in contravention of s. 54A(2) of the
Indian Companies Act, 1913 were illegal and could not be recovered. Mr. K.N.
Bhabha contended (1) that the appellants ought not to be allowed to take this
new point in this appeal; (2) the lending of the money was a part of the
ordinary business of a banking company and the loans to Ramnath and Narayandas
were made by the Company in the course of its business; and (3) having regard to
the decision in Re V.G.M. Holdings, Ltd(1), the word "purchase" in s.
54A(2) did not include the acquisition of shares by subscription or allotment,
and in this case, the loans were given in connection with the acquisition by
Narayandas or his nominees of shares by subscription or allotment. and not in
connection with acquisition of shares by :purchase, and consequently, s. 54A(2)
had no application. Now, it appears that in paragraph 15 of his written
statement Narayandas pleaded that (1)  1 All E.R. 234.
785 the advance of loans to him in connection
with the purchase of shares was illegal, but no issue was raised on the
question whether the loans were financial assistance in connection with the
purchase of the shares and were in contravention of s. 54A(2). There is a
passing reference to this contention in paragraph 15 of the judgment of the
trial Court, but there is no reference to it in the judgment of the High Court.
We find also that this contention finds no place in the statement of the case filed
on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Purushottam Tricamdas relied on ground No. 12
of the appellants statement of case, but, we think that this ground is wholly
insufficient to raise this contention.
In these circumstances, we think that it is
not open to the appellants to urge this contention, and we indicated this to
Mr. Purushottam Tricamdas in the course of the argument.
In the Courts below, the appellants contended
that Kamalabai was a minor, and, therefore, the allotment of 1000 shares to her
was. invalid'. This contention is no longer pressed, and does not survive.
No other contentions were advanced before us.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed with
costs, one hearing fee.