Companies Act, 2013 · Chapter XVI: Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement
Section 241: Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of oppression, etc
(1) Any member of a company who complains that—
(a) the affairs of the company have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to him or any other member or members or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; or
(b) the material change, not being a change brought about by, or in the interests of, any creditors, including debenture holders or any class of shareholders of the company, has taken place in the management or control of the company, whether by an alteration in the Board of Directors, or manager, or in the ownership of the companys shares, or if it has no share capital, in its membership, or in any other manner whatsoever, and that by reason of such change, it is likely that the affairs of the company will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to its interests or its members or any class of members,
may apply to the Tribunal, provided such member has a right to apply under section 244, for an order under this Chapter.
(2) The Central Government, if it is of the opinion that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest, it may itself apply to the Tribunal for an order under this Chapter.
[Provided that the applicants under this sub-section, in respect of such company or class of companies, as may be prescribed, shall be made before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal which shall be dealt with by such Bench.]
[(3) Where in the opinion of the Central Government there exist circumstances suggesting that—
(a) any person concerned in the conduct and management of the affairs of a company is or has been in connection therewith guilty of fraud, misfeasance, persistent negligence or default in carrying out his obligations and functions under the law or of breach of trust;
(b) the business of a company is not or has not been conducted and managed by such person in accordance with sound business principle or prudent commercial practices;
(c) a company is or has been conducted and managed by such person in a manner which likely to cause, or has caused, serious injury or damage to the interest of the trade, industry or business to which such company pertains; or
(d) the business of a company is or has been conducted and managed by such person with intent to default its creditors, members or any other person or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose or in a manner prejudicial to public interest,
the Central Government may intiate a case against such person and refer the same to the Tribunal with a request that the Tribunal may inquire into the case and record a decision as to whether or not such person is a fit and proper person to hold the officer of director or any other office connected with the conduct and management of any company.
(4) The person against whom a case is referred to the Tribunal under sub-section (3), shall be jointed as a respondent to the applicantion.
(5) Every application under sub-section (3)—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of such circumstances and materials as the Central Government may consider necessary for the purpose of the inquiry; and
(b) shall be signed and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), for the signature and verification of a plaint in a suit by the Central Government.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 14 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 241
- Sanjiv Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors
-
GLAS Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran & Ors.
Whether the appellant, who was not a party to the settlement between the second respondent-BCCI (Operational Creditor) and the Corporate Debtor, has locus in the proceedings before this Court; whether the NCLAT erred in…
- Dlf Limited v. Pnb Housing Finance Limited & Ors
- Pankaj Oswal Through His Constituted Attorney Sanjay Wali v. Vikas Pahwa
-
Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd v. Ravindra Loonkar,
The moot question involved is the extent of the jurisdiction and powers of the Adjudicating Authority to go on the issue of revaluation in the background of the admit ted and undisputed factual position that no…
-
Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd v. Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Whether the documents executed by the borrower-appellant by which rents were made over to the lender-respondent constituted an assignment and thus fell outside the scope of an a sset and security freeze order made by…
- Pankaj Oswal Through His Constituted Attorney Mr. Sanjay Wall v. Vikas Pahwa
- Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
- Mr.Surender Kumar Gupta and Others v. J M Housing Limited and Others
- Manish Kumar v. Union of India and Another
- Aruna Oswal v. Pankaj Oswal & Ors.
- Hari Sankaran v. Union of India & Others