Vaibhav Mishra and Sparsh Tiwari, Fourth- year student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
INTRODUCTION
Capital reduction is a salient aspect of corporate finance that is dealt with under section 66 (‘the section’) of the Companies Act of 2013 (‘2013 Act’). It entails a reduction in the issued share capital of the company. Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore explains the commercial rationale for undertaking the capital reduction as including a plethora of reasons such as simplifying capital structure, and ownership structure, increasing dividend-paying capacity, etc.
Indian corporate jurisprudence has evolved through numerous judgments that have elucidated the scope of this section. The established position was that the company’s rationale for the invocation of the section cannot be questioned, affirming its wide application. Last year, in September 2024, a petition was filed by Phillips India Limited before National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) Kolkata (‘the tribunal’) under the section seeking permission for the reduction of capital. The company provided two reasons for the application i.e. providing liquidity to the minority & reducing administrative costs. However, the tribunal, in its order dismissing the petition, held that such a transaction fell outside the scope of capital reduction.
Though a development in last year, the vacuum of judicial discretion under Section 66 still remains in the Indian regime. This article attempts to critically analyse NCLT’s order vis-à-vis precedents. The article also analyses relevant foreign authorities to clarify the scope of the section. Furthermore, it also delves into the possibility of effecting the takeover outside these traditional arrangements.
NCLT’S ORDER VIS-À-VIS PRECEDENTS
In this matter, Koninklijke Philips N. V., which held 96.13% of shares in Philips India Limited, wanted to effect capital reduction by purchasing shares of minority shareholders. For this, a two-fold reason was provided by the company, viz., firstly, providing liquidity to the shareholders who could not liquidate their holdings following the company’s delisting in 2004, and secondly, reducing the administrative costs associated with minority shareholders. However, the tribunal dismissed the petition, with the interpretation of the statutory scheme of the section playing a key role in its decision.
Before delving into judicial reasoning, it is crucial to examine the existing precedents on this section’s interpretation. In a similar factual scenario, the Bombay High Court in Capital of Wartsila India Limited v. Janak Mathuradas, confirmed the petitioner company’s capital reduction that was undertaken to provide liquidity to minority shareholders who had no way to liquidate their holdings after the company was delisted in 2007. Similarly, the single judge bench of Delhi NCLT in Devinder Parkash Kalra & Ors. v. Syngenta India Limited allowed capital reduction as a means of providing liquidity to the minority shareholders. It is pertinent to note that NCLT confirmed the application of capital reduction even though it called for revaluation by an independent valuer. Also, in Economy Hotels India Services Private Limited v. Registrar of Companies, Justice Venugopal termed the process of capital reduction under the section as a “domestic affair”, affirming its expansive scope. These precedents reflect the traditional line of reasoning where the courts did not interfere in the application of the section except to secure certain equitable objectives, such as securing the minority’s interest.
ASSESSING THE NCLT’S ORDER IN LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE SECTION
In this matter, the tribunal characterised the nature of the transaction as a buy-back and not a capital reduction. The rationale for this decision was twofold: first, the present transaction did not fall under any of the three instances outlined under the section, and second, the inapplicability of the section in light of section 66(8). As evident, the order was a departure from the established line of judicial reasoning associated with capital reduction.
Firstly, on the rationale that the present transaction did not fall under instances provided under the section, it is pertinent to note that the tribunal failed to give any consideration to the words “in any manner” as used in the section. These words are of wide import and must be given their natural meaning. Moreover, a reference may be made to the corresponding provision of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) for guidance. Section 100 of the now-repealed Act further clarified the generality of the provision by incorporating the words “in any manner; and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power”. Therefore, the incorporation of the words “in any manner”, though not the same as section 100, supports an expansive interpretation not limited to the instances mentioned under the section.
Furthermore, an expansive interpretation could reasonably allow the present transaction to fall within the purview of section 66(b)(ii), which states that a company can “pay off any paid-up share capital which is in excess of wants of the company”.The reasoning is that one of the motivations behind the company’s decision to undertake this transaction was to reduce the administrative costs of managing around 25,000 shareholders who collectively held a minuscule 3.16% of the total share capital. This objective of reducing administrative costs can reasonably be interpreted as falling within the scope of being in “excess of wants” under section 66(b). Further support for this interpretation is provided by Ramaiya’s commentary[i], where he suggests that “a company may be in need of money so paid-up through capital in business but still may not be in want of the money through share capital”. Thus, an expansive interpretation brings this transaction within the ambit of the section.
Secondly, section 66(8) states that “nothing in this section shall apply to buy-back of its securities under Section 68”. To clarify the scope of this provision, the tribunal referred to section 100 of the Act, highlighting that it lacked a provision like section 66(8). The tribunal interpreted this discrepancy to mean that section 66(8) restricted the buy-back of securities under the section. However, this reasoning is beset by the fact that the Act lacked any provision for buy-back of securities. It was only in 1999 that such a provision, viz. section 77A, was included. The 2013 Act creates a separate section i.e. section 68, to deal with buy-back transactions. Hence, it is contended that 66(8) is clarificatory in nature, implying that capital reduction and buy-back of shares are governed under separate sections, and does not serve to restrict the scope of capital reduction. Thus, the author opines that the tribunal has erred in its order, creating an uncertain position in a relatively established position on the applicability of the section.
JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN CAPITAL REDUCTION TRANSACTIONS: AN ANALYSIS
Judgements from the UK offer critical cues on understanding capital reduction. For instance, inBritish American Trustee and Finance Corporation v. Couper, judicial discretion over the capital reduction process was affirmed by the court. The courts also laid the relevant principles like fairness and equitable process for minority shareholders, creditors, etc., to guide this ‘judicial discretion’. In Re Ranters Group PLC[ii], the court interpreted the section 135(1) of the Company Act, 1985. Interestingly, section 135, though no longer in effect, uses similar wording, like the section in the context of capital reduction i.e. “reduced in any way”. Harman J. here held that the court needs to ensure broadly three things, viz, equitable treatment of shareholders, protection of creditor’s interest and ensuring that shareholders are aware of the proposal. The NCLT’s order exceeds this ‘judicial discretion’. In the instant case, there was nothing in the order to prove inequitable treatment or violation of the creditor’s interest. Therefore, the deviation in NCLT’s order could affect the business autonomy of the company and could potentially create various challenges for the corporate sector in executing transactions.
Thus, the situation calls for legislators to reassess the structure & statutory scheme of the section of the 2013 Act. NCLT’s order, if treated as precedent, implies that the whole process under the section becomes dependent on the tribunal’s discretion. As is evident, the section starts with ‘subject to confirmation by tribunal’. It is contended that the role of the judiciary is limited to protecting the interests of shareholders, creditors and ensuring equity in transactions.
EXPLORING THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF CAPITAL REDUCTION
In this matter, Phillips was unable to effect capital reduction even after obtaining the consent of 99% of shareholders. This highlights the need for an alternative structure that allows companies to undertake capital reductions outside the bounds of the traditional arrangement. In this context, valuable insights could be drawn from section 84 of the Companies Act of Ireland, 2014, which outlines two methods of capital reduction: the Summary Approval Procedure ( SAP) and the Court-bound method. The SAP allows a company to carry out a capital reduction through a two-fold process, firstly, by passing a special resolution of the shareholders and lastly, declaration of solvency from the directors. This process avoids the need of court approval, bringing in the efficiency and flexibility that our system currently lacks.
Another example of a highly relaxed framework can be found in section 256B of the Corporations Act, 2001 in Australia, where companies wishing to effect capital reduction may do so, provided they lodge a notice with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) prior the meeting notice is sent to the shareholders. The shareholders hold the final authority to decide on the capital reduction, and their decision does not require any confirmation. Thus, capital reduction remains entirely within the domain of the shareholders.
In the Indian context, section 236 of the 2013 Act, mirroring section 395 of the Act, could potentially serve as an alternate mechanism for the acquisition of minority shares. This provision allows any person or group of persons holding ninety percent or more of the issued equity capital of a company to acquire the remaining minority shareholdings. However, there are few precedents on its application, and the provision lacks clarity due to its clumsy drafting. For example, while section 236(1) & (2) allows the majority with more than 90% shareholding to buy minority shares, 236(3) dealing with minority shareholders does not obligate them to sell their shareholding. Thus, 236 offers an incomplete remedy from the perspective of the company. It is contended that this provision should be interpreted in light of its objective, well-stated in its JJ Irani Committee report. The evident intention of the committee in introducing section 395 of the Act was to create a legal framework for allowing the acquisition of minority shareholding. However, as noted above, the provision in its current form does not put an obligation on the minority shareholders while providing a ‘buy-out’ mechanism to the majority, illustrating a conservative approach of legislators.
Therefore, it is suggested that necessary amendments be made to section 236(3) to impose a mandate on minority shareholders to divest their shareholding, while also ensuring an equitable valuation for them. Such amendments would facilitate the full realisation of the remedy provided under this provision, serving as an alternative to the section of the 2013 Act.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
While the NCLT’s deviation from the established precedent on capital reduction may be flawed in its reasoning, it has nonetheless sparked a debate about the necessity of exploring alternatives to traditional capital reduction methods. The need for such alternatives is further underscored by the economic and time-related costs associated with seeking tribunal confirmation. The focus should be on identifying alternative methods that safeguard minority shareholders from exploitation, while also enabling companies to undertake capital reduction quickly and efficiently.
[i] Ramaiya, Guide to the Companies Act, 2013, vol. 1 (25th ed. LexisNexis 2021)
[ii] [1988] BCLC 685.
The HNLU CCLS Blog 