Tag: MOA

Introduction

As part and parcel of a transaction, companies seeking investment provide their investors with certain rights, which are contractually negotiated. These range from receiving periodic reports on the business and financials of the company to representation on the board of directors and the right to be involved in certain key decisions required to be taken by the company in the course of their growth. Such rights are typically requested by investors based on factors such as the nature of the investment (i.e., financial or strategic) and the level of insight into the business, operations and management of the company required. In such transactions, these rights (and the extent) are agreed upon and captured in a shareholders’ agreement (“SHA”) between the parties, whereas the rights and obligations pertaining to the fundraising itself are governed by the investment agreement.

 Typically, investors (especially foreign) and companies/founders agree to arbitrate any disputes arising from the investment agreement or the SHA. However, referring a dispute to arbitration is often not as clear-cut as a contractual agreement between parties. Indian courts have repeatedly been required to provide rulings on whether or not arbitration can be invoked by the parties to a SHA. This issue is complicated further by conflicting judicial precedents which have ultimately resulted in an unclear understanding of the law forming the basis of how parties can agree to arbitrate any disputes.

 In this article Dispute Resolution in the Articles of Association (AOA), we have provided an overview of the contested legal position and our suggestions for navigating the murky landscape, with the fundamental goal of ensuring the parties’ contractually documented intent is protected and legally enforceable.

Relationship between a Shareholders’ Agreement and the Articles of Association (‘AOA’)

What is the AOA?

Similar to how the constitution of India forms the basis of Indian democracy, the memorandum of association (‘MOA’) and AOA form the basis for a company’s legal existence. The MOA can be seen as the constitutional document that lays down the fundamental elements and broad scope within which the company, business, and operations will typically operate. However, it is the AOA that puts in place a ‘rulebook’, prescribing the regulations and by-laws that govern the company and in effect, enshrining and giving effect to the principles of the MOA. 

It is crucial to understand that because a company is seen as a separate legal person, the AOA is a critical document that establishes the legal relationship between the shareholders of the company inter se and with the company. In order to lay the framework for the operations of the company, an AOA will include provisions (in accordance with applicable laws) that: 

(i)    regulate internal affairs and operations of the company; 

(ii)   provide clarity on procedures the company must follow; 

(iii)  govern the issue/buyback of securities and clarify the legal rights and obligations of shareholders holding different classes of securities; and 

(iv)  legitimize the authority of the board of directors and their functions. 

It is, therefore, a reasonable presumption that any action undertaken by a company must be authorised by the AOA/MOA. Any amendment or alteration to these documents would not only require the assent of the board, but also of the shareholders (i.e., members of the company), and requires filing with the competent Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act, 2013. While these procedures are in place primarily to protect the shareholders from mischief by the company, the lengthy process involved in altering the AOA serves to highlight how essential a document it is for a company’s action to hold legal justification.  

How does the shareholders’ agreement typically become enforceable? 

Often in transaction documents, a critical mechanism that enables the enforcement of the investor rights agreed in the SHA is captured in the investment agreement, where as part of the conditions required to be satisfied upon receipt of the investment amount by the company, the company, and founders must also ensure that the AOA is suitably amended to codify the investor rights. 

However, the legal justification for this action in itself finds a conflict between two different schools regarding the enforceability of provisions from the SHA that have not been incorporated into the AOA: 

(i) The “incorporation” view – the prominent authority for this view is the ruling of the High Court of Delhi in World Phone India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. WPI Group Inc. USA (the “World Phone Case”)[1], where it was held that a board resolution passed without considering an affirmative voting right granted to a shareholder under a joint venture agreement, was legally valid in light of the company’s AOA, which contained no such restriction. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in V.B. Rangaraj v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan (the “Rangaraj Case”)[2] and subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court in IL&FS Trust Co. Ltd. v. Birla Perucchini Ltd. (the “Birla Perucchini Case”)[3], the Delhi High Court was of the view that the joint venture agreement could not bind the company unless incorporated into the AOA. 

The Rangaraj Case is of particular interest in this school of thought because while the issue dealt with share transfer restrictions, the Supreme Court held that it was evident from the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 that the transfer of shares is a matter regulated by the AOA of the subject company and any restriction not specified in the AOA was not binding on the company or its shareholders. Crucially, the World Phone Case poses a problem in the legal interpretation of the “incorporation” view because the Delhi High Court has carried the ratio of the Rangaraj Case to a logical conclusion and observed that even where the subject company is party to an SHA, the provisions regarding management of affairs of the company cannot be enforced unless incorporated into the AOA. 

(ii)   the “contractual” view – the prominent authority for this view is the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v Union of India (the “Vodafone Case”)[4], where the Supreme Court disagreed with the ratio in the Rangaraj Case, without expressly overruling it, and held that freedom of contract includes the freedom of shareholders to define their rights and share-transfer restrictions. This was found to not be in violation of any law and therefore not be subject to incorporation within the AOA. This has also been supported by the Delhi High Court in Spectrum Technologies USA Inc. v Spectrum Power Generation[5] and in Premier Hockey Development Pvt. Ltd. v Indian Hockey Federation[6]. In fact, in the latter case, the Delhi High Court was of the view that the subject company, being party to both an SHA and a share subscription and shareholders agreement containing an obligation to modify the AOA to incorporate the SHA, was conclusive in binding the subject company to the same despite an absence of incorporation into the AOA. 

How can this fundamental disagreement be reconciled?

It is difficult to reconcile the issues caused by conflicting rulings from the same judicial authority. Given that the circumstances of each case provide scope for situation-specific reasoning, we cannot conclusively say one view is preferred, or more appropriate, over the other. Further, where the courts have stopped short of conclusively overruling previous judgments (for instance the Supreme Court on the Vodafone Case only disagreed with the ratio of the Rangaraj Case), the result is an unclear understanding of the legal position regarding the enforceability of SHA without incorporation in the AOA.   

It is also pertinent to note that the issues in the above rulings also deal with the enforceability of certain shareholder rights that have been contractually agreed upon (such as affirmative votes or share transfer restrictions). By contrast, dispute resolution is a mechanism contractually agreed upon between the parties in the event of any dispute/breach of the SHA and cannot be characterized as a “right” of any shareholder(s), in the true sense of the word. However, in light of the conflicting principles guiding the “incorporation” and “contractual” views, the lack of clarity extends to the inclusion of dispute resolution in the AOA simply to make the intent of parties to approach arbitration, enforceable. 

Incorporation of arbitration clauses

Flowing from the “incorporation” view, the Delhi High Court, relying on the Rangaraj Case, World Phone Case, and the Birla Perucchini Case, held in Umesh Kumar Baveja v IL&FS Transportation Network[7] that despite the subject company being a party to the SHA, it was the AOA that governed the relationship between the parties and that since they did not contain any arbitration provision, the parties could not be referred to arbitration. A similar ruling was passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai in Ishwardas Rasiwasia Agarwal v Akshay Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.[8], where it was held the non-incorporation of the arbitration clause into the AOA of the subject company was fatal to the request for a reference to arbitration, despite findings that the dispute was contractual in nature and arbitrable. 

A second line of reasoning flowing from the “contractual” view has attempted to uphold the contractual intent of the parties reflected in an SHA. In Sidharth Gupta v Getit Infoservices Pvt. Ltd.[9], the Company Law Board, Delhi was required to rule on the reference to arbitration. Relying on the facts that the SHA had been incorporated verbatim into the AOA and the subject company was a party to the SHA, the Company Law Board rejected the argument from an “incorporation” view and remarked on the importance of holding shareholders “to their bargain” when significant money had been invested on the basis of the parties’ understanding recorded in the SHA. It is pertinent to note in this case, that the Company Law Board had been directed by the Supreme Court to dispose of the case without being influenced by the decisions of the Delhi High Court. This led the Company Law Board to not consider the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the World Phone Case as binding. 

An unusual third line of reasoning has also been provided by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in EIH Ltd. v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.[10]. In this case, a dispute regarding a breach of AOA was referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause of the constitutive joint venture agreement to which the resultant company was not a party. The High Court held that the joint venture agreement and the AOA of the subject company were part of the same transaction, where the primary contractual relationship was contained in the joint venture agreement, and that the AOA functioned as a “facilitative sister agreement” to the same. Given the critical nature of the AOA to the internal governance of the subject company as a juristic person however, this line of reasoning where the AOA is relegated to a “sister agreement” is likely to not stand the test of a comprehensive judicial review of this issue.

Navigating the landscape and concluding thoughts

The startup growth trajectory continues to contribute significantly to the Indian economy, with funding crossing USD 5.3 billion in the first six months of 2024 and over 915 investors participating in funding deals[11]. This will see a proportional rise in investor-company disputes, and when reference to arbitration is contractually agreed but not enshrined in the SHA, this can lead to further delays at the stage of dispute resolution, where the competent court would be required to first rule on whether the reference to arbitration can even be enforced. However, the conflicting judicial precedents are only the tip of this murky iceberg; party autonomy is a fundamental guiding principle to any reference to arbitration. Where judicial precedent sets the grounds for formal incorporation into the AOA as a condition to enforcing this party intent, however, a question of whether the parties’ contractually documented intent is being ignored, is raised. 

Further, the legal basis for the “incorporation” view is itself under question. A key component from the Rangaraj Case is that the Supreme Court based its ruling on the issue of share transfer restrictions and basis the provision of Companies Act, 1956 that stated a company’s shares are “transferable in the manner provided by the articles of the company”. This position has also been questioned by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in the Vodafone Case and by academics and has been distinguished and disregarded by lower High Courts on slim grounds. Consequently, the judicial precedent has been applied to a non-share transfer context as well, forming the basis for the incorporation view on arbitration clauses.  

In conclusion, while it is our opinion that a contract-centric approach is more reflective of party intent, especially with reference to arbitration, the insistence on incorporating provisions of the SHA into the AOA would pose a potential roadblock in the event the parties are required to approach dispute resolution. Pending clarity from the judiciary on this issue, the best approach to dealing with this situation is adopting a conservative approach of incorporating dispute resolution provisions within the AOA, preventing delays in the event of a dispute between the parties. 

[1] World Phone India Pvt. Ltd. v. WPI Group Inc. USA 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1098.

[2] V.B. Rangaraj v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan (1992) 1 SCC 160.

[3] IL&FS Trust Co. Ltd. v. Birla Perucchini Ltd. 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1004

[4] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613.

[5] Spectrum Technologies USA Inc. v. Spectrum Power Generation, 2000 SCC OnLine DEL 472

[6] Premier Hockey Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Hockey Federation, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2621

[7] Umesh Kumar Baveja v. IL&FS Transportation Network, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6436

[8] Ishwardas Rasiwasia Agarwal v. Akshay Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., C.A. 328/2013 in CP 117/2013 (Compay Law Board, Mumbai Bench) (Unreported).

[9] Sidharth Gupta v. Getit Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., C.A.128/C-II/2014 in CP No. 64(ND)/2014 (Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench) (Unreported).

[10] EIH Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Arb Case 60/2005 (H.P. H.C.) (Unreported).

[11] https://inc42.com/buzz/at-5-3-bn-indian-startup-funding-stays-flat-yoy-in-h1-2024/#:~:text=According%20to%20Inc42’s%20’H1%202024,the%20first%20half%20of%202024.