Corporate democracy functions on the fundamental principle of majority rule. However, when the majority abuses its power to the detriment of minority shareholders, the company, or the public interest, Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 provides a statutory mechanism for equitable relief. These provisions vest the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with expansive equitable powers to investigate, intervene, and restructure corporate affairs to bring an end to “Oppression and Mismanagement.”

Because these powers are inherently intrusive, allowing the Tribunal to supersede the Board of Directors and rewrite contractual obligations, the legislature has erected a strict statutory gateway. Not every disgruntled shareholder possesses the legal standing to initiate proceedings. Section 244 of the Act establishes strict numerical and shareholding thresholds.

This publication analyzes the procedural requirements of Section 244 in light of recent 2025-2026 judgments by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), focusing on the waiver of standing, the sequencing of interim reliefs, and the overriding nature of Section 242.

The Eligibility Threshold: Section 244 of the Companies Act

Section 244 establishes the mandatory qualifying criteria to file a petition under Section 241. To maintain a petition, the applicants must satisfy the following mathematical thresholds:

A. For Companies with a Share Capital:

The petition must be supported by:

1. Not less than 100 members of the company; OR
2. Not less than one-tenth (10%) of the total number of its members; OR
3. Any member or members holding not less than one-tenth (10%) of the issued share capital of the company (provided the applicant has paid all calls and other sums due on their shares).

B. For Companies without a Share Capital:

The petition must be supported by not less than one-fifth (20%) of the total number of its members.

The Discretionary Waiver: 2025–2026 Jurisprudence

Recognizing that strict adherence to the numerical threshold might leave minority shareholders remediless against severe corporate abuse, the proviso to Section 244(1) grants the NCLT discretionary power to “waive all or any of the requirements” to enable members to apply under Section 241.

The exercise of this waiver is not a matter of right but an equitable exception. The NCLAT has significantly clarified what constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” warranting a waiver.

The Public Interest and Collective Concern Test:

In the recent landmark judgment of Somangsu Biswas vs. The Calcutta Cricket & Football Club (NCLAT, 2025-2026), involving a Section 8 company (without share capital), the NCLAT elucidated the waiver parameters. The Tribunal held that a waiver under Section 244(1)(b) is justified when:

• The allegations are substantive, continuing, and not frivolous.
• The petition raises issues of substantial “public interest” or demonstrates a broader collective concern among the membership (e.g., evidenced by mass representations to management).
• The substratum of the company’s assets or core purpose is under imminent threat of being transferred or fundamentally altered.

The NCLAT affirmed that in such exceptional circumstances, even a minuscule fraction of members who do not meet the 20% threshold can be granted a waiver to pursue a Section 241 petition, ensuring that technicalities do not defeat substantive justice.

Maintainability Precedes Interim Relief: The Vipin Kumar Doctrine

A critical procedural tactic frequently deployed in NCLT litigation involves petitioners seeking ex-parte or urgent interim freezing orders under Section 242(4) simultaneously with their application for a waiver of standing under Section 244.

The NCLAT definitively settled the correct procedural sequence in Vipin Kumar vs. Sunil Ahuja & Ors. (NCLAT Principal Bench, Decided April 2026).

• The Ruling: The Appellate Tribunal held that an application for waiver under Section 244 goes to the very root of the petition’s maintainability.
• The Mandate: The NCLT commits a jurisdictional error if it proceeds to pass substantive interim directions (such as status quo orders restraining the alienation of assets) based on the merits of the case without first adjudicating and deciding the waiver application.
• If the petitioner does not possess the requisite standing (and a waiver is not yet granted), the NCLT lacks the jurisdiction to entertain prayers for interim relief affecting the company’s daily operations.

Section 242 Powers Override Contractual Arrangements

Once standing is established (either by threshold or waiver), the remedial powers of the NCLT under Section 242 are virtually unbounded, provided they are exercised strictly to bring an end to the complained oppression.

In Dr. Anita Roy vs. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT, February 2026), the Appellate Tribunal addressed a conflict between a previously executed Share Purchase Agreement/One Time Settlement (OTS) and the subsequent regulatory intervention of the NCLT.

• The Ruling: The NCLAT held that when statutory powers under Section 242 are invoked to regulate the affairs of a company, such directions override and control internal management arrangements and private contractual understandings (such as Share Purchase Agreements or inter-promoter dispute resolution mechanisms) to the extent necessary to cure the mismanagement.
• Private commercial contracts cannot act as a shield against the NCLT’s statutory mandate to restructure management, appoint independent administrators, or order forensic audits under Section 242.

The “Supervisory” Fallacy

Despite the expansive powers under Section 242, the NCLT is not an appellate forum for commercial decisions.

As clarified in Jagan Nath Dang vs. Seven Seas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (NCLT New Delhi, April 2026), the jurisdiction under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 is exceptional. It is not intended to act as a general supervisory forum over internal management or day-to-day administrative decisions. A mere lack of confidence between majority and minority shareholders, or disagreements over routine corporate governance (e.g., specific bank signatories), does not constitute oppression unless it involves a continuous course of conduct that is harsh, burdensome, and fundamentally prejudicial to the company’s survival or public interest.

Conclusion and Practice Directives

The 2025-2026 jurisprudential developments reinforce a balanced corporate dispute framework. While the NCLAT has demonstrated a willingness to utilize the waiver provision to protect vulnerable minorities in cases of severe asset stripping or public interest violations (Somangsu Biswas), it simultaneously enforces strict procedural discipline (Vipin Kumar), ensuring that the NCLT’s extraordinary powers are not weaponized via interim orders before standing is definitively established.

For corporate litigants and defense counsel, the immediate focus at the inception of any Oppression and Mismanagement proceeding must be the rigorous scrutiny of the petitioner’s locus standi. Any attempt to bypass the Section 244 adjudication must be aggressively contested as a jurisdictional defect.

The post Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013: Oppression & Mismanagement — Who Has Standing to File? (2026 NCLAT Update) appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.