Can a Shareholder Sue a Director for Mismanagement in a Private Company?

Exploring shareholder rights under Indian law to sue directors for mismanagement, negligence, or bad faith affecting company and shareholder interests.

CORPORATE LAWS

Ajay

6/18/20254 min read

For many private companies, shareholders and directors are often from the same family or circle. In those circumstances, it becomes difficult to distinguish between those who own the company and those who manage it. Family or close group relationships may trigger impulsive decision making, self-serving acts, or an abuse of authority that will ultimately be detrimental to the minority shareholder. A pertinent question is whether the laws of India afford any opportunity for shareholders to seek a remedy when directors are mismanaging the company. The response is likely yes, but with certain preconditions and statutory requirements. This paper will explore the statutory, derivative, and equitable remedies for shareholders in instances where directors have breached their obligations in a private company.

1. Duties of Directors Under Indian Law

The Companies Act, 2013, outlines specific duties for directors to fulfill in effective management. Section 166 enumerates duties that include:

  • To act in good faith and the best interests of the company.

  •  To exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence.

  •  To ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

  •  That they do not seek any other undue advantage.

Not fulfilling these duties can be considered mismanagement and can invite litigation.

2. What Constitutes Mismanagement?

Mismanagement often relates to poorly carrying out the affairs of the company.

Possible ways include:

  •  Financial irregularities or theft.

  •  Self-dealing transactions.

  •  Unauthorized or unauthorized decision-making that has an impact on stakeholders.

  •  Ignoring regulatory compliance.

One notable case is Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd.[1], which emphatically made it clear that directors could carry the business of the company and the interests of shareholders into legal conflict [Senguttuvan, K., & Perumal, V., IBC Laws, 2023].[2]

3. Statutory Remedy under Sections 241 & 242

To initiate legal remedy, way for angry shareholders to proceed is through Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013: · Section 241 "Power of Tribunal to prevent oppression" states that shareholders may apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) if the company's affairs are being conducted in an oppressive or prejudicial manner

· Section 242 gives the Tribunal extensive authority, including the ability to terminate a person as director, make changes to the company's articles, or amend the newly ratified articles, or regulate future conduct of the company.

Who may file: · For private companies, at least 10% shareholding, or at least one-fifth of the total number of members.

The Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Nageshwara Rao case provides an important example that shareholders have the power to deal with oppressive management, even if they don't have a substantive legal right breached, as long as they have their interests adversely affected.[3]

4. The Derivative Action Doctrine

Trustees of the Company owe duties to the company, and the company is an entity different from the directors. In cases of wrongful acts against the company, but the board refuses to take steps, and in many cases, their interests may be involved, a shareholder may initiate a derivative action on behalf of the company.

The principle is slowly becoming recognized before courts in India.

5. Oppression and Minority Shareholder Protection

Minority shareholders frequently find themselves unable to hold controlling shareholders or directors accountable, especially in private companies. Conduct that might amount to oppression includes: - Improper exclusion from decision-making - Unjust enrichment of the majority shareholders - Dilution of shareholding - Withholding of information and/or financials [CAM Blog, 2023][4] and the [ICSI Report][5] endorse a forward-thinking approach in the protection of minority shareholders in these cases.

6. Can Shareholders Sue Directors Directly?

Traditionally, the courts distinguish between: - Personal rights of shareholders (the right to vote or receive dividends, for example): Shareholders can bring direct proceedings if these rights of the shareholders are violated. - Rights of the company: Any loss sustained by the company must be mitigated by way of a derivative action. Current laws indicate that courts do not allow or generally discourage direct actions unless statutory or personal rights are affected directly.

7. Practical Challenges in Legal Action

There are some significant obstacles that shareholders face when using formal legal remedies:

  •  Procedural hurdles - the Minimum shareholding must be met.

  •  Evidential hurdles - to prove bad faith/breach of duty, such as financial documents, are usually under the control of the Board.

  •  Delay and costs - no legal resolution is speedy. This can be a problem whether one is going to court, whether NCLT or other higher courts.

  • Fear of retaliation - in closely held private companies, dissenting minority shareholders may just be squeezed out.

The ICSI MSOP Report confirms that these practical impediments to litigation will ultimately create practical barriers to shareholders going to court.

In Conclusion, yes, a shareholder can sue directors for mismanagement in a private company; it is a legal labyrinth. The Companies Act, 2013 enables shareholders to seek help through the NCLT, either by way of oppression or by way of derivative claimants. Directors need to undertake fiduciary duties; failure to do so may, in extremis, lead to dismissal and a change in management. Legal remedies are available in theory to shareholders, but shareholders can only enforce those remedies if the statutory, evidence-gathering, and internal corporate hurdles are surmountable.

At the end of the day, the law is attempting to sit somewhere between allowing managers the freedoms to be and accountability to their shareholders.

If anything, shareholders (particularly in the minority) need to stay vigilant and knowledgeable when engaging with the complexities of corporate governance to defend their interests.


© 2025. All rights reserved.