These appeals relate to a dispute between the appellant a shareholder and director who holds 40 of shares in the first respondent companypany and the other share holders respondents 2 to 5 appellants brother and his family and directors of the said companypany who hold 60 of the shares.
By orders dated 20.8.1999, 3.11.1999 and 1.5.2000, the Company Law Board Board for short gave an option to the appellant to sell his shares to respondents 2 to 5 Group at a price fixed by an independent valuer.
On exercise of the option by the appellant, M s Price Waterhouse Coopers were appointed as the valuer for determining the fair value of shares, based on the balance sheet as on 31.3.1998.
The Board directed the first respondent companypany to pay the arrears of salary perquisites to the appellant for the period upto 31.3.2002.
The valuer submitted a Report on 13.12.2001 valuing the shares at Rs.2044/ per share.
Not being satisfied with the said order dated 16.6.2005 of the High Court, both sides have filed these appeals by special leave.
Application for deleting the name of the deceased second respondent in CA No.5729/2008 is allowed as his LRs respondents 3 to 5 are already on record.
The High Court disposed of the appeals by companymon order dated 16.06.2005.
Thereafter, the Board by its order dated 05.05.2003, accepted the valuation and held that the second respondent group will purchase the shares held by the appellant Vinod Kumar at Rs.2044/ per share.
In the year 1998, the appellant filed a petition under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression, and mismanagement.
As the appellant held 7,420 equity shares of Rs.100 each the Board arrived at the amount payable for the shares as Rs.1,51,66,480/ .
That order of the Board was challenged by both the parties before the High Court.
On objections by both, the Board directed fresh valuation.
The valuer reiterated its earlier valuation.
It held that appellant is entitled to remuneration and perquisites till date of valuation of shares and payment thereof.
It set aside the valuation on the ground of bias.
It also directed that the payment should be made to the appellant positively by 31.7.2003.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
It directed the revaluation as on 31.3.2005.
