Section242
The Companies Act, 2013

Powers of Tribunal

In force From 01 Apr 2014 Act 18 of 2013 As on 15 Oct 2026

Act 18 of 2013 Ministry Corporate Affairs Enacted 29 Aug 2013 In force 01 Apr 2014 Cited by 9 provisions Instruments 2

Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with powers of Tribunal. If, on any application made under section 241, the Tribunal is of the opinion-- (a) that the company's affairs have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to any member or members or prejudicial to public interest or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; The Act came into force on 01 Apr 2014.

(1) If, on any application made under section 241, the Tribunal is of the opinion--

(a) that the company's affairs have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to any member or members or prejudicial to public interest or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; and

(b) that to wind up the company would unfairly prejudice such member or members, but that otherwise the facts would justify the making of a winding-up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the company should be wound up,

the Tribunal may, with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained of, make such order as it thinks fit.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers under sub-section (1), an order under that subsection may provide for--

(a) the regulation of conduct of affairs of the company in future;

(b) the purchase of shares or interests of any members of the company by other members thereof or by the company;

(c) in the case of a purchase of its shares by the company as aforesaid, the consequent reduction of its share capital;

(d) restrictions on the transfer or allotment of the shares of the company;

(e) the termination, setting aside or modification, of any agreement, howsoever arrived at, between the company and the managing director, any other director or manager, upon such terms and conditions as may, in the opinion of the Tribunal, be just and equitable in the circumstances of the case;

(f) the termination, setting aside or modification of any agreement between the company and any person other than those referred to in clause (e):

Provided that no such agreement shall be terminated, set aside or modified except after due notice and after obtaining the consent of the party concerned;

(g) the setting aside of any transfer, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property made or done by or against the company within three months before the date of the application under this section, which would, if made or done by or against an individual, be deemed in his insolvency to be a fraudulent preference;

(h) removal of the managing director, manager or any of the directors of the company;

(i) recovery of undue gains made by any managing director, manager or director during the period of his appointment as such and the manner of utilisation of the recovery including transfer to Investor Education and Protection Fund or repayment to identifiable victims;

(j) the manner in which the managing director or manager of the company may be appointed subsequent to an order removing the existing managing director or manager of the company made under clause (h);

(k) appointment of such number of persons as directors, who may be required by the Tribunal to report to the Tribunal on such matters as the Tribunal may direct;

(l) imposition of costs as may be deemed fit by the Tribunal;

(m) any other matter for which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it is just and equitable that provision should be made.

(3) A certified copy of the order of the Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be filed by the company with the Registrar within thirty days of the order of the Tribunal.

(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceeding, make any interim order which it thinks fit for regulating the conduct of the company's affairs upon such terms and conditions as appear to it to be just and equitable.

1[(4A) At the conclusion of the hearing of the case in respect of sub-section (3) of section 241, the Tribunal shall record its decision stating therein specifically as to whether or not respondent is a fit and proper person to hold the officer of director or any other officer connected with the conduct and management of any company.]

(5) Where an order of the Tribunal under sub-section (1) makes any alteration in the memorandum or articles of a company, then, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the company shall not have power, except to the extent, if any, permitted in the order, to make, without the leave of the Tribunal, any alteration whatsoever which is inconsistent with the order, either in the memorandum or in the articles.

(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the alterations made by the order in the memorandum or articles of a company shall, in all respects, have the same effect as if they had been duly made by the company in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the said provisions shall apply accordingly to the memorandum or articles so altered.

(7) A certified copy of every order altering, or giving leave to alter, a company's memorandum or articles, shall within thirty days after the making thereof, be filed by the company with the Registrar who shall register the same.

(8) If a company contravenes the provisions of sub-section (5), the company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty-five lakh rupees and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable 2*** with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to 3[one lakh rupees].

Section 242, The Companies Act, 2013 (Act 18 of 2013).

Cross-references

Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

  1. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd.

    Supreme Court of India 26 Mar 2021 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2021) 9 SCC 449

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order that had restored Cyrus Mistry and restrained Tata Sons. Removal of an executive chairman, and conversion to a private company, did not by themselves amount to oppression or mismanagement under sections 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Tribunal intervention in commercial decisions of a company's board is tightly confined.

    On this section: s.242 restorative powers (reinstate a removed chairman; restrain conversion) are consequential on s.241 oppression being made out; they fall when 241 fails.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  2. Usha Ananthasubramanian vs Union of India

    Supreme Court of India 12 Feb 2020 Binding (SC) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The powers conferred on the National Company Law Tribunal under Sections 337 and 339 of the Companies Act, 2013, in the context of Section 241 proceedings for oppression and mismanagement, are limited to the specific company in which acts of mismanagement or fraudulent conduct are alleged. These powers cannot be exercised to freeze assets of or impose liability on a person who is an officer or head of another organization, unless that person was directly and knowingly party to the carrying on of the fraudulent business of the company in question. The jurisdiction of the NCLT is circumscribed by the company in relation to which the application is made, and cannot extend to other corporate entities or their officers merely because they may have failed to prevent fraud.

    On this section: Provides vast powers to the Tribunal in cases of oppression and mismanagement. The Court clarified that these powers are limited to the company in question.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.

Judgments citing this section

These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.

  1. Supreme Court of India 26 Mar 2021 SCIN010015002021

    … Responding to the cure notice dated 17 July 2018, HSVP addressed a communication dated 11 October 2018 to both RMGL and RMGSL . 7 On 1 October 2018, a petition[1]( page-4-0) was instituted by the Union of India under Section 241(2) read with Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the " Act of 2013 ") before the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (" NCLT ") against Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (" IL&FS ") and its Board of Directors (" Board "), on the ground that the affairs of the company and its subsidiaries were …

    Read this order on eCourtsIndia

  2. Supreme Court of India 19 Jan 2021 SCIN010096252020

    … In this regard, we find support from an early judgment of this Court, which was rendered under Section 153-C of the Companies Act, 1913. Section 153-C is the predecessor to Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. Its most recent avatar is contained in Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 244. In fact, Section 399 (3) of the Companies Act, 1956, read as follows: > "399(3) Where any members of a company are entitled to make an application in virtue of sub-section (1), any one or more of them having obtained the consent in writing of the rest, may …

    Read this order on eCourtsIndia

  3. Supreme Court of India 19 Jan 2021 SCIN010047472020

    … In this regard, we find support from an early judgment of this Court, which was rendered under Section 153-C of the Companies Act, 1913. Section 153-C is the predecessor to Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. Its most recent avatar is contained in Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 244. In fact, Section 399 (3) of the Companies Act, 1956, read as follows: > "399(3) Where any members of a company are entitled to make an application in virtue of sub-section (1), any one or more of them having obtained the consent in writing of the rest, may …

    Read this order on eCourtsIndia

Made under this section, and citing it

1 instrument states that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.

Another 1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.

All subordinate legislation

Questions about Section 242

What have the courts held on Section 242 of the Companies Act?

Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd. (26 Mar 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.242 restorative powers (reinstate a removed chairman; restrain conversion) are consequential on s.241 oppression being made out; they fall when 241 fails. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2020 to 2021.

How do I find court cases under Section 242 of the Companies Act?

In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Companies Act 242, section 242 Companies Act, section 242 of the Companies Act. People searching for it also type companies act 241 242 and companies act 2013 section 242. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd. (26 Mar 2021).

What should I read with Section 242 of the Companies Act, and has it changed?

Its own text turns on section 241 (Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of oppression, etc), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 9 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there is one: most recently commencement notification dated 09.09.2016 (2016).

When did Section 242 of the Companies Act come into force?

Section 242 of the Companies Act, cited as Companies Act 242, came into force on 01 Apr 2014, having been enacted on 29 Aug 2013. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.

Other sections of this Act

Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.