Salve : The settled position is that the company should be run with lack of probity. But just because some decisions are bad, it cannot be oppression. There should be lack of probity established.
CJI : If a petition for oppression is filed, and the Tribunal finds the oppression is so gross that the company should be wound up, why can't the company pass orders under Section 242.
CJI : What seems to be the correct position is that, if a petition is filed for winding up, and the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that instead of winding up, the problem can be fixed, alternate orders can be passed.
Salve emphasizes on the word "otherwise" in Section 242(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Salve : Where has the Tribunal come to the finding that there should be winding up OTHERWISE?
Salve : There is no single instance of Cyrus Mistry bringing a resolution and the same being vetoed by the trustee directors. The veto has not been exercised for at least 20 years. Such was the harmony. And the directors are called 'puppets'!
Salve : The next ground cited by the Tribunal is the changing of public company to private company. How did the minority lose(because of this)?
CJI : A mere loss cannot come under Section 242 unless it is a loss caused only to the minority.
Salve : That is our submission.
CJI : Is there any finding that because of the losses the minority was affected more?
Salve : Every one gets affected the same. I am losing 68 Rupees for every 100 rs lost by the company.
CJI : So everybody has lost money including the majority.
Salve now refers to the findings of the Tribunal that the oppression is such that a winding up order is just and equitable.