Understanding Share Transfer Restrictions Through Private Arrangements

Contributed By:P.B.V.Mahesh

INTRODUCTION

One of the key distinctions between a public company and a private company is that the shares of a public company are freely transferable. The right to freely transfer shares can be contractually restricted, provided that such restrictions are reasonable and not absolute. Globalization has significantly increased the flow of foreign capital into India and to safeguard their investment, the incoming investors are likely to put restrictions on the transferability of shares by the promoters. Investment agreements typically include clauses such as ‘lock-in periods’, ‘rights of first refusal or offer’, ‘pre-emption rights’, ‘tag-along’, and ‘drag-along’ rights. These clauses safeguard the interest of the incoming investors by limiting unknown third party shareholders getting involved in the company. Since investor confidence often hinges on trust in the founders or promoters, they do not want the promoter/founders shareholding getting reduced. This article examines the legality and enforceability of contractual clauses that restrict transfer of shares in a public company and also analyses the need for a more explicit provision to eliminate the ambiguity in ascertaining the legality of contractual clauses restricting share transfer in investment agreements.

INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Section 58(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read along with its proviso states that the securities or other interest of any member in a public company shall be freely transferable and any contract or arrangement between two or more persons in respect of transfer of securities shall be enforceable as a contract.

A corresponding provision of the erstwhile Companies Act 1956 i.e. Sec 111A (2) doesn’t have a similar kind of proviso. The addition of the proviso to Section 58(2) under the Companies Act 2013, appears to reflect the legislature’s intent to clarify the enforceability of private contractual arrangements restricting share transfers.

A literal reading suggests that restrictive clauses in investment agreements are enforceable as contractual obligations and the wording in the statute is unclear and ambiguous regarding whether those restrictive clauses bind the company or not, as the word “person” in the proviso to Sec 58(2), cannot be interpreted to include the company itself and there is also an express stipulation that the shares of public companies are freely transferable.

Section 58(4) of the Companies Act 2013 states that ‘it is open to the public company to refuse registration of the transfer of the securities for a sufficient cause’. However, the statute does not define what constitutes ‘sufficient cause’ thereby leaving its interpretation to the discretion of the company’s board of directors to determine whether the reason for refusing a transfer is sufficient or not, based on the specific facts and circumstances, while considering the interests of the company and its stakeholders.

JURISPRUDENCE

In the case of Karamsad Investments Ltd v. Nile Ltd, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh opined that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ within its ambit includes the contravention of law and other circumstances that might require the company to refuse the registration of transfer of securities.

The Supreme Court confirmed the position taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Mackintosh Burn Ltd v. Sarkar and Chowdhury Enterprises Pvt Ltd, the Supreme Court stated that registration of share transfer can be refused for any sufficient cause and not just in case of a violation of any law. The Supreme Court left it to the discretion of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to ascertain whether the reason for refusing to register the transfer was sufficient cause or not, based on the facts of a given case.

In Messer Holdings Ltd v. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia & Ors, the Bombay High Court held that the ‘right of first refusal’ clause in the share purchase agreement as legally valid and enforceable, it further held that the restrictive provisions u/s 111A of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 are not to be interpreted to curtail the rights of shareholders to enter into contractual arrangements. The Court suggested that free transferability is not compromised where a shareholder voluntarily consents to contractual restrictions. 

In Bajaj Auto Ltd v. Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Ltd, the Bombay High Court held that the idea of free transferability means the freedom for the shareholder to transfer his shares in a manner he prefers, the sole consideration of it being a public company where shares are subscribed by public at large does not become a detriment for a shareholder to enter into contractual arrangements to transfer his shares as long as it adheres to the governing law.

In Riverdale Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Ltd, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that there is nothing in the law that stops shareholders from entering into contracts with restrictive covenants regarding transferability of shares, even though the principle, in general, is that the shares of the public company are freely transferable.

CURRENT LEGAL POSITION?

Section 58(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 appears to lack both, explicit prohibition or affirmation of the enforceability of contractual clauses restricting share transfers. Hence more reliance on the judiciary was contemplated to decide the validity.

Judicial pronouncements so far, by various high courts, made it clear that contractual arrangements restricting share transfer are within the mandate of the Companies Act 2013.

However, till date there is no absolutely authoritative reasoned order from the Apex Court regarding the legality and enforceability of the share transfer restrictive contractual arrangements in public companies. In both ‘Messer Holdings case’ (supra) and ‘Bajaj Auto case’ (supra) appeals reached the Supreme Court, the dismissals were without reasoned orders, limiting their precedential value. In the absence of binding precedent from the Supreme Court, there remains the possibility of inconsistent interpretations by different High Courts, leading to an uncertain play field for incoming investors who contemplate to include restrictive clauses, regarding transfer of shares, in investment agreements.

CONCLUSION

Judicial pronouncements have largely upheld the validity of contractual share transfer restrictions, though the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling leaves room for divergent interpretations. Investors don’t appreciate an uncertain legal environment or an apprehension of litigation. As the statutory language is unclear and open to interpretation, in my view there is a need for the inclusion of an explicit and clearer wording regarding the restrictive share transfer clauses in contractual arrangements u/s 58(2) of the 2013 act. A balanced legislative approach, inspired by global best practices, can strengthen India’s image as a predictable and investor-friendly jurisdiction. Clear statutory provisions validating share transfer restrictions in public companies would enhance legal certainty and bolster investor confidence.

If you are looking for professional assistance in share issuance, share transfers, stamp duty payments, fundraising transactions or end-to-end compliance management for your company, SimplyBiz offers comprehensive solutions covering all stages of the entity life cycle. To know more or to outsource your compliance requirements, please write to Shilpa Agarwal at shilpa@simplybiz.in.