Holding

A restriction on share transfer that is not expressly provided in the Articles of Association is not binding on the company or shareholders; therefore the oral agreement is unenforceable and the sale of shares stands.

Summary

In a private limited company with 50 shares, two brothers each held 25 shares and orally agreed that any sale of shares would first be offered to members of the same family branch. The agreement was never incorporated into the Articles of Association. After the brothers' deaths, a son of one brother sold his shares to the sons of the other brother, contrary to the oral agreement. The plaintiffs (other sons of the first brother) sued for a declaration that the sale was void and for transfer of the shares to them. The trial court ruled in their favour, but the Madras High Court reversed, holding the oral agreement binding on the company and ordering the shares to be transferred to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that shares are movable property freely transferable and that only restrictions expressly set out in the Articles of Association are binding on the company and shareholders. An oral agreement imposing additional restrictions not reflected in the Articles is unenforceable. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the plaintiffs' suit dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an oral agreement among shareholders imposing additional restrictions on the transfer of shares, not incorporated into the Articles of Association, is binding on the company and its shareholders.
Whether such a restriction is enforceable under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Transfer of Property Act.
Whether the company is obligated to register shares in the plaintiffs' names despite the oral agreement.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 109, s. 110, s. 26, s. 28, s. 31, s. 39, s. 3(iii), s. 40, s. 82
Transfer of Property Act

Subjects

share transferprivate companyArticles of Associationoral agreementpre-emption rightsrestriction on transferCompanies Act 1956movable propertyenforceability

Judgment

....
~I

~,
'"t
V. B. RANGARAJ A
V.
:;"\
•,.....r V. B. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND ORS.

'•
....
!
J NOVEMBER 28, 1991

[P. B. SAWANT AND B. P. JEEV AN REDDY, JJ.] B

Companies Act, 1956 :

Sections 3(iii), 26, 28, 31, 39, 40, 82, 109 and 110-Transfer of
~I
~I.,
shares-Shareholder's right to transfer-Subject to restrictions contained in
the Articles of Association of the ·Company-Agreement among shareholders C
I restricting transfer of shares-Not specified in the Articles of Association--
·I
I
Whether binding on the company or on shareholders--Shares--Nature of-
Transferable like any other movable property.

Of the total shareholding of 50 in a private limited company, 25
shares each were held by two brothers Band G of a joint family. It was D
agreed among the two brothers, that each of the two branches of the
family would continue to hold the shares in equal measure, viz. 25 each
and if any member in either of the branches desired to sell his share/
shares, he would give the first option to the members of the branch to
which he belongs and only in case the offer was not accepted, the s~ares
could be sold to others. However, the Articles of Association of the said E
company were not amended in conformity with the oral agreement.

' After the death of the two brothers B and G, one of the sons of B
sold the shares to sons of G, which was contrary to the oral agreement.
The other sons of B not having got the option to purchase as per the said F
oral agreement, filed a suit against their brother, for a declaration that
the sale was void and not binding on them. Defendants 4 to 6 were the
purchasers of shares. Defendant No. 2, another son of B was made
proforma defendant. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that the
sale of the said shares was invalid. The first appellate court dismissed the
'\
appeals preferred by the defendants. In the second appeals filed by the G
defendants, the High Court held 'that the sale of the shares by the first
defendant in favour of defendants 4 to 6 was invalid and hence the
plaintiffs and the second defendant became entitled to purchase the said
shares; that the said oral agreement was binding on the c~mpany, and
that the company was bound in law to register the said shares in the
plaintiffs' names. · H

1
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C. R.

A Aggrieved against the High Court's decisions, the defendants pre-
ferred appeals before this Court contending that the said oral agreement
in effect imposed an additional restriction on the right to transfer the
shares, which_ was not envisaged by any of the Articles of Association:
that it was not binding on any shareholder or a vendee of the shares; that
it was unenforceable at law and therefore, not binding on the company.
B It was further contended that the High Court could not have directed the
transfer of shares in favour of plaintiffs as the first defendant could not
be forced to sell the shares to the plaintiffs.

The respondents contended that the shareholders were bound by ),
the oral agreement; that the agreement was entered into to maintain the
C ownership of the company in the family and to ensure that the two
branches of the family had an equal share in the management and
profits and losses of the company; that there was nothing in the Articles
of Association which prohibited such agreement and that the two branches
of the family being party to the agreement, it was enforceable against
them.
D
Allowing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1.1 Whether under the Companies Act or Transfer of
Property Act, the shares are, transferable like any other movable
property. The only restriction on the transfer of the shares of a company
E is as laid down in its Articles, if any. A restriction which is not specified
in the Articles is, therefore, not binding either on the company or on the
shareholders. The vendee of the shares cannot be denied the registration
of the shares purchased by him on a ground other than that stated in the
Articles. [6 G,H]
F
1.2 In the instant case, the private agreement which is relied upon
by the plaintiffs whereunder there is a restriction on a living member to
transfer his shareholding only to the branch of the family to which he
belongs in terms imposes two restrictions which are not stipulated in the
Article. There was a restriction on a living member to transfer the
.G shares only to the existing member and another restriction was that the
transfer has to be only to a member belonging to the same branch of the .
family. The agreement obviously, therefore imposes additional restric-
tions on the member's right to transfer his shares which are contrary to
the provisions of the Article 13. They are, therefore, not binding either
on the shareholders or on the company. The finding recorded by the
H courts below that the sale by the first defendant of' his shares to
'

RANGARAJ v. GOPALAKRTSHNAN 3

r defendants 4 to 6 is invalid as it is in breach of the agreement, is A
.: erroneous in law. [9 F-H, 10-A]

1.3 Even a new member can be admitted as a shareholder
provided the majority of the members are agreeable. to do so. It also
appears from the word ''nominee" that a living member has a right to
nominate even a third party to succeed him as a member on his death. B
The restriction on transfer by way of a right of pre-emption which is
incorporated in the third part· of Article 13 is only in respect of the
shareholding or the deceased member and not of a living member.
Whereas the heirs/nominees are as a matter of right entitled to become
members if they are willing to do so, the restriction on the transfer of
shares steps in only when they are unwilling to become members, in C
which case the shares of the deceased member shall be first distributed
among the existing members equally. The transfer may be to any existing
member whether he belongs to one or the other branch of the family and
in such case there is no need for consent of the majority of the members.
The .Article in fact envisages the distribution of the shareholding of the
deceased member (and not of the living member) equally among the D
members of both branches of the family and not of any one of the
branches only. Even the shares of· the decea1>ed member can be
transferred to any new member when his heirs/nominees are not willing
to become members. However, this can be done only with the consent of
the majority of the members. [9A-E]
E
S.P. Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd., [1965] 2 SeR 720; Re: Swaledale
Cleaners Ltd., [1968] 1 All ER 1132 and Tett v. Phoenix Property and
Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors., [1986] 2 nee 99, 140, referred to.

Palmer's Company Law. 24th Ed., pages 608-9; / Ialsbury' s Laws of F
England, 4th Ed., para 359; 'Restrictions on transfer of shares' in Penington' s
Company Law, 6th Ed. at page 753, referred fo.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1946-47
of 1980.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.80 of the Madras High Court
in Second Appeal No. 1994 and 2165 of 1978.

K.Parasaran, K.N.Bhalt, T.K.Scshadri and D.N. Mishra for the Appel-
lant.
H
,,
...-"' . .
'

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A T.S.Krishnamurthi Iyer, R.N.Keshwani, K.Ram Kumar, Ms. A.Anjani,
A.T.M.Sampath (NP), Mrs. J.Ramachandra and Sri Narain (NP) for the
Respondents.
\
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B SAWANT, J. These two appeals, Civil Appeal No. 1946 of 1980 filed
by defendant 1 and Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 1980 filed by defendants 4 to
6, are against the decision dated February 8, 1980 of the Madras High Court.
The main que~tion that falls for considerati.on in both the appeals is whether
the shareholders can among themselves enter into an agreement which is
contrary to or inconsistent with the Articles of Association of the company.
c
2, The third defendant is a private limited company which all along had
a total shareholding of 50. Before the joint family of the plaintiffs and
defendants came to hold all the 50 shares of the company, the family was
a minority shareholder holding 13 shares, the rest 37 shares being held by
. outsiders. In course of time, the family acquired the rest 37 shares and
D became the sole shareholder of the company. The family consisted of ,,
Baluswarny Naidu and Guruviah Naidu who were brothers; and each of the
brothers held 25 shares in the company. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 avd
2 and one Selvaraj are the sons of Baluswamy Naidu and defendants 4 to 6
are the sons of Gurvviah Naidu. Baluswarny Naidu died on February 5, 1963
and Guruviah Naidu died on January 10, 1970. The plaintiffs alleged that in
E 1951 there was an oral agreement between Baluswamy Naidu and Guruviah
Naidu that each of the branches of the family would always continue to hold
equal. number of shares, viz.; 25 and that if any member in either .of the
branches wished to sell his share/shares, he would give the first option of
purchase to-the members of that branch and only if the offer so made was not
accepted, the shares would be sold to others. Although on behalf of defen-
F dants, it was disputed that there was any such agreement entered into between
the two brothers, the finding recorded by all the courts below is against the
defendants. It is not in dispute that the Articles of Association of the
company were not amended to bring them in conformity with the said
agreement.
G
Contrary to the said agreement, the first defendant, i.e., son of
Baluswamy Naidu sold the shares to defendants 4 to 6 who are the sons of
Guruviah Naidu. Hence the plaintiffs who are Baluswamy's sons filed the
present suit for (i) a declaration that the said sale was void and not binding
upon ihe plaintiffs and the second defendant (who is also the son of
H Baluswarny Naidu b~t was joined as a pro forma defendant) and for (ii) an

"
RANGARAJ v. GOPALAKRISHNAN [SAWANT, J.] 5

"' order directing defendants 1 and 4 to 6 to transfer the said shares to the A
>1 plaintiffs and the second defendant and for (iii) a permanent injunction
restraining defendants 4 to 6 from applying for registering the said shares in
their names and from acting adversely to the interests of the plaintiffs and the
second defendant on the basis of the transfer of the said shares .

. 3. The Trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the sale of the said B
shares was invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and the second defendant,
and directed both the first defendant and defendants 4 to 6 to transfer the said
shares to the plaintiffs, and granted permanent injunction as prayed for. The
appeals filed by the first defendant and defendants 4'to 6 were dismissed.
In the second appeals filed by them the High Court held that the courts
below had proceeded on a wrong basis. According to the High Court the suit C
was in effect one to enforce the agreement providing for pre-emption and the
court was entitled to mould the reliefs on the facts proved in the case and
accordingly the High Court modified the deerec by directing substitution of
the plaintiffs as shareholders in place of defendants 4 to 6. In other words,
the High Court in terms held that (i) the sale of the shares by the first
defondant in favour of defendants 4 to 6 was invalid and hence the plaintiffs· D
and the second defendant became entitled to purchase the said shares, (ii)
the agreement was binding on the company, and (iii) the company was
bound in law to register the said shares. in the plaintiffs' names.

4. Shri Parasaran appearing for defendants 4 to 6 in C.A. No. 1946 of
1980 contended that the agreement in effect imposed an additional restric- E
tion on the right to transfer the shares. The restriction was not envisaged by
any of the Articles of Association. Hence it was not binding on any
shareholder or a vendee of the shares from the shareholders. It was also
unenforceable at law and, therefore, not binding on the company. Hence the
sale of the shares by the first defendant to defendants 4 to 6 was not
invalid and the High Court was wrong in directing the transfer of shares in F
favour of the plaintiff~. Shri Bhatt appearing for the first defendant (appellant
in C.A. No. 1946 of 1980) contended that assuming that the sale of shares by
the first defendant to defendants 4 to 6 was invalid in view of the agreement,
the High Court could only have declared that the sale was invalid and it could
not have further directed the transfer of shares in favour of plaintiffs. The G
first defendant could not be forced to sell the shares to the plaintiffs. Shri
Krishnamurthy, on the other hand, contended that (i) the shareholders were
bound by the agreement of 1951; (ii) the agreement was entered into to
maintain the ownership of the company in the family and to ensure that the
two branches of the family had an equal shnre in the management and profits
and losses of the company; (iii) there was nothing in the Articles of H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A Association which prohibited such agreement and (iv) the two branches of
the family being party to the agreement, it was enforceable against them, and
the courts have done nothing more than to enforce the agreement

5. The basis of the judgment and decree of the High Court and of the
judgments and decrees of the courts below is the alleged invalidity of the sale
B of the shares. It is therefore, necessary to understand the true position of law '
in this behalf. Section 3 (iii) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as ~
\
_ 'the Act') defines privpte company to mean a company which by its Articles,
restricts the right to transfer its shares, if any, and limits the number of its
shares to 50 (excepting employees and ex-employees who were and are
members of the company) and prohibits any invitation to the public to
C subscribe for any shares in, or debentures of, the company. Section 26 of the
Act provides that in the case of a private company limited by shares, such as
the third defendant-company, there shall be registered with the Memoran-
dum, Articles of Association signed by the subscribers of the Memorandum
prescribing regulations for the company. Section 28 provides that the Articles
of Association of a company limited by shares may adopt all or any of the
D regulations contained in Table A in Schedule I of the Act. Section 31
provides for alteration of the Articles by a special resolution of the company.
Section 36 states that when the Memorandum and Articles of Association arc
registered, they bind the company and the members thereof. Section 39
provides for supply of the copies of Memorandum and Articles of Associa-
tion to a member. Section 40 makes it mandatory to incorporate any changes
E in the Articles of Association in every copy of the Articles of Association.
Section 82 defines the nature of shares and states that the shares or other
interests of any member in a company shall be movable property transferable
in the manner provided by the Articles of Association of the company.

F These provisions of the Act make it clear that the Articles of Associa-
tion arc the regulations of the company binding on the company and its
shareholders and that the shares are a movable property and their transfer is
regulated by the Articles of Association of the company.

G 6. Whether under the Companies Act or Transfer of Property Act, the
shares arc, therefore, transferable like any other movable property. The only
restriction on the transfer of the shares of a company .is as laid down in it<;
Articles, if any. A restriction which is not specified in the Articles is,
therefore, not binding either on the company or on the shareholders. The
vendcc of the shares cannot be denied the rcgistmtion of the shares purchased
H by him on a ground other than that stated in the Articles.
RANGARAJ v. GOPALAKRISHNAN [SAWANT, J.] 7

7.. We may refer to certain authorities which reinforce the above A
proposition.

In S.P. Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd., [1965] 2 SCR 720, it was also a case
of a battle between two groups of shareholders led by P & L as they were
named in the decision. In July 1954 these two groups who held an equal
number of shares of the value of Rs. 21 lakhs, out of a total share capital of B
Rs. 25 lakhs, in the company which was then a private company, entered into
an agreement with the appellant who was a third party and certain terms were
agreed to. Various resolutions were passed by the company to implement the
agreement. However, neither the Articles of Association were changed to
embody the terms of the agreement nor the resolutions passed referred to the
agreement. In 1956-57, the company desired to raise a loan from the c
Industrial Finance Corporation and as per the requirement of the Corporation,
in January 1957 the company was converted into a public company and
appropriate amendments for the purpose were made in the Articles. However,
even on this occasion, the agreement of July 1954 was not incorporated into
the Articles. Disputes having arisen, the matter reached the Court. The
appellant claimed the benefit of the agreement of July 1954. It was held by D
this Court that the said agreement was not binding even on the private
company and much less so on the public company when it came into
existence in 1957. It was an agreement between a non-member and two
members of the company and although for some time the agreement was in
the main carried out, some of its terms could not be put in the Articles of
Association of the public company. As the compani,wa<; not 11ound by the E
agreement it was not enforceable. ·

In Re Swaledale Cleaners Ltd., [1968] 1 All ER 1132 it was held that
it is well-established that a share in a company is an item of property freely
alienable in the absence of express restrictions under the Articles. This view
F
is reiterated in Tett v. Phoenix Property and Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
[1986] 2 BCC 99, 140.

In Chapter 16 of Gore-Browne on Companies (43rd Ed.) while dealing
' ...,/ with transfer of shares it is stated that subject to certain limited restrictions
" imposed by law, a shareholder has primafacie the right to tr..msfer his shares G
when and to whom he pleases. This freedom to transfer may, however, be
significantly curtailed by provisions in the Articles. In determining the extent
of any restriction on transfer contained in the Articles, a strict construction is
adopted. The restriction must be set out expressly or must arise by necessary
implication and any ambiguous provision is construed in favour of the
shareholder wishing to transfer. H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C. R.

In Palmer's Company law (24th Ed.) dealing with the 'transfer of ,,..
A
shares' it is stated at page 608-9 that it is well-settled that unless the Articles \"!'I

otherwise provide the shareholder has a free right to transfer to whom ne will.
It is not necessary to seek in the Articles for a power to transfer, for the Act
(the English Act of 1980) itself gives such a power. It is only necessary to
\.
~

look to the Articles to ascertain the restrictions, if any, upon it. Thus a
B member has a right to transfer his share/shares to another person unless this
right is clearly taken away by the Articles.

InHalsbury' s Laws of England (4th Ed.) para 359 dealing with 'attrib- ,... I
utes of shares' it is stated that "a share is a right to a specified amount of the :
share capital of a company carrying with it certain rights and liabilities while I
c the company .is a going concern and in its win~ing. The shares or other
interest of any member in a company. are personal estate transferable in the
manner provided by its articles and are not of the nature of real estate".

Dealing with 'restrictions on transfer of shares' in Penington's Com- ~

pany Law (6th Ed.) at page 753 it is stated that shares are presumed to be
D freely transferable and restrictions on their transfer are construed strictly and
so when a restriction is capable of two meanings, the less restrictive .
interpretation will be adopted by the court .It is also made dear that these
restrictions have to be embodied in tjle Articles of Association.

8. Again.st the background of the aforesaid legal position, we may now
E examine the Articles of Association of the third defendant-company. It is not
disputed before us that the only Article of the Articles of Association of the
company which places restriction on the transfer of shares is Article 13. The
Article reads as follows:

"13. No new member shall be admitted except with the consent
F .. of the majority of the members on the death of any member of
his heir or heirs or nominee; shall be admitted as member. If such
heir, heirs or nominee is/are unwilling to become a member, such
share capital shall be distributed at par among the members .....
equally or transferred to any new member with the c_onsent of the .,,... ....
G majority of the members.''..

The aforesaid Article in effect consists of three parts. The first part
states that no new member shall be admitted except with the consent of the
majority of the members. The sesond part states. that on the death of any
member, his heir or heirs or nominee/s shall be admitted as member/s. The
H third part states that if such heir or heirs or nominee/s is/are unwilling to
RANGARAJ v. GOPALAKRISHNAN [SAWANT, J.] 9

become member/s, the share capital of the deceased member shall be A
r' distributed among the existing mem!>ers equally or transferred to any new
member with the consent of the majority of the members. It is, therefore,
clear that even a new member can be admitted provided the majority of the
members are agreeable to do so. It also appears from the word "nominee"
that a living member has a right to nominate even a third party to succeed to
him as a member on his death. Further the restriction on transfer by way of B
a right of pre-emption which is incorporated in the third part of the Article
is only in respect of the shareholding of the deceased member and not of a
(_ living member. Whereas the heirs/nominees are as a matter of right entitled
to become members if they are willing to do so, the restriction on the transfer
of shares steps in only when they are unwilling to become members. The
restriction states that in the latter event the shares of the deceased member c
shall be first distributed among the existing members equally and if they are
to be transferred to any new member, it would be done so with the consent
of the majority of the existing members. It may be noticed from this
restriction, that firstly there is no limitation on the transfer of his shares by
a living member either to the existing member or to a new member. The only
condition is that when the transfer is made to a new member, it will have to D
be approved by the majority of the members. The transfer may be ·to any
exi:;ting member whether he belongs to one or the other branch of the family
and in such case there is no need of a consent of the majority of the members.
The Article in fact envisages the distribution of the shareholding of the
deceased member (and not of the living member) equally among the mem-
bers of both branches of the family and not-of any one of the branches only. E
Even the shares of the deceased member can be transferred to any new
member when his heirs/nomfoees are not willing to become members.
However, this can be done only with the consent of the majority of the
members.
F
9. Hence, the private agreement which is relied upon by the plaintiffs
whereunder there is a restriction on a living member to transfer his sharehold-
ing only to the branch of family to which he belongs in terms imposes two
restrictions which are not stipulated in the Article. Firstly, it imposes a
restriction on a living member to transfer the shares only to the existing
members and secondly the transfer has to be only to a member belonging to G
the same branch of family. The agreement obviously, therefore, imposes
additional restrictions on the member's right to transfer his shares which are
contrary to the provisions of the Article 13. They are, therefore, not binding
either on the shareholders or on the company. In view of this legal position,
the finding recorded by the courts below that the sale by the first defendant
of his shares to defendants 4 to 6 is invalid as it is in breach of the agreement, H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A is erroneous in law. In view of our above finding, it is unnecessary to go in Lo
the question whether the High Court was justified in directing the transfer of
shares by defendants 4 to 6 to the plaintiffs even if its finding that the sale
was invalid was correct.

In t!lc circumsLanccs, the appeals arc allowed, the decree of the High
B Court is set aside and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs.

G.N. Appeals allowed.
,:.. .

r

-