Authored by Kundan Mani Pradhan, CLC, Delhi University
A drag-along clause obliges minority shareholders to sell on the same terms as a defined group of selling holders, It serves a simple commercial function, which is that an acquirer does not often pay for control without taking control of the entire entity. To meet this condition drag-along clauses prevent situations where one unresponsive holder can frustrate a transaction that the majority of holders support. Its legality is equally simple, since the clause removes the minority’s choice, and compels a transfer.
Drag-along clauses are not defined in the Indian law. This piece argues that it is enforceable inter partes as a contract under section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013. The enforceability of drag-along clauses against a company along with its resilience against challenge depend on whether it is incorporated in the Articles of Association and whether it secures substantive parity for dragged holders.
Legal Provisions:
Drag-along and tag-along distinguished
A tag-along right operates in favour of the minority: where the majority sells the minority may join the sale at the same price and on the same terms.1
A drag-along right operates in favour of the majority and the acquirer: where a defined group sells, it may compel the remaining holders to sell. Because it removes the minority’s choice, its legitimacy depends on borrowing the tag-along’s guarantee of equal treatment.
Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013
Section 58(2) makes the securities of a public company freely transferable, subject to a proviso that any contract or arrangement between two or more persons in respect of the transfer of securities is enforceable as a contract.3 The proviso supplies the textual basis for a drag-along clause. The Bombay High Court treats section 58 as codification that ‘merely clarifies and codifies the existing legal position’ under section 111A of the 1956 Act,4 relying on the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s report5 and on SEBI’s notification of 3 October 2013 permitting pre-emption, tag-along and drag-along rights in SHAs or articles.6
Private companies stand differently: section 2(68) requires their articles to restrict transfer,7 locating the clause most securely there. Section 236 provides compulsory acquisition at ninety per cent,8 whereas a drag-along operates at lower thresholds, and provides relief to the oppressed minority through sections 241–242 before the National Company Law Tribunal.9
Legal Analysis
Notice:
A defensible drag-along clause requires written notice i)identifying the acquirer ii)the price per share by class iii) the form of consideration iv) the closing date, with draft documents attached. A response period of ten to fifteen business days and a defined ‘material change’ test that requires fresh notice.
Price parity:
Dragged holders must get the same price, in the same form, as dragging holders of the same class. Where preference shares exist, “same” is measured through the liquidation waterfall (the contractual order in which proceeds are paid out), not by dividing the total equally per share. Price parity is rarely broken head-on. It erodes collaterally, for example through i) Consulting agreements: a founder or majority holder is paid by the buyer for “services” after closing. ii) Retention pools: part of the deal value is set aside to pay people who stay on, often the same people driving the sale.iii) Related-party acquirers: the buyer is connected to the dragging holders, so value can flow back to them after closing. A price fixed by an agreed process, there arbitration, does not invalidate the arrangement 10 which supports price floors and independent valuation.
Warranties and liability caps:
Passive holders cannot warrant the target’s accounts, contracts or tax position. Dragged holders should give i) Title: they own the shares, free of charges or third-party claims. ii) Capacity: they are legally able to sell (not insolvent, not under a legal disability).iii) Authority: the sale has been properly authorised on their side, for example by board or internal approvals if the holder is a company. Warranties given by the company or management, and liability should be several, capped at proceeds received, with escrow as first recourse and a defined survival period.
Minority-protection mechanisms
Further safeguards include a price floor. Independent valuation or non-conflicted minority approval where the acquirer is connected to a dragging holder; concurrent board approval; and no non-compete covenants for passive holders. The power of attorney by which dragging holders execute transfers draws the closest scrutiny and should be confined to the notified transaction and revocable on material change.
Valid exit tool or unfair transfer arrangement
The distinction between these two line items turns on process and substance. A legitimate exercise involves i) a genuine arm’s-length acquirer ii) a price tested by negotiation or market process iii) identical terms and adequate information iv) an unfair one involves an acquirer controlled by the majority v) side payments restoring insiders’ value, or a sale timed to dispossess a particular holder.Only a blanket restriction binding every member, not an arrangement between identified holders over their own shares, engages free transferability.11
Where fairness fails, the remedy lies in sections 241–242, but Tata Consultancy Services demands conduct that is burdensome, harsh and wrongful, together with facts justifying winding up on just and equitable grounds.12 Protection should therefore be best located in the clause itself.
Case Laws:
V.B. Rangaraj v V.B. Gopalakrishnan
Two branches of a family held all the shares of a private company whose only transfer restriction was Article 13; the respondents relied on an oral agreement requiring a seller to offer shares first within his branch. The Supreme Court held that restrictions are strictly construed13 and that a restriction ‘not specified in the Articles’ binds neither company nor shareholders,14 casting doubt on any transfer term located only in an SHA.
Vodafone International Holdings BV v Union of India
Obiter, in a tax dispute, a three-judge bench held that an SHA binds its parties and yields to the articles in a conflict;15 that Rangaraj’s requirement of incorporation is ‘a view we do not subscribe’;16 and that breach of an SHA that does not breach the articles is ‘a valid corporate action’, remedies lying in general law.17 Such rights are purely contractual,18 though the judgment also affirms that transfer restrictions are valid if contained in the articles and strictly construed.19
Bajaj Auto Ltd v Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Ltd
An agreement gave each of two shareholders in a listed company a right of first refusal. The price being fixed by arbitration failing agreement.20 A single judge set aside the award for breach of free transferability under section 111A(2).21 The Division Bench reversed the finding and held that section 111A regulates the board’s power to refuse registration and not shareholders’ freedom to contract over their own shares.22 That a blanket restriction on all members would offend the free transferability but a clause confined to named holders does not;23 The bench held that ‘it is wholly another’ to say contracting parties are unbound even if the company is.24 It followed Messer Holdings and distinguished Rangaraj and read section 58(2) as codification.25
Messer Holdings Ltd v Shyam Madanmohan Ruia (Supreme Court)
The dispute in this case was that of a right of first refusal in a 1997 share purchase agreement.26 The Court did not rule on its validity. It dismissed the special leave petitions as infructuous,27 left enforceability open28 and imposed costs of ₹25 lakh on each of three parties for abuse of process after approximately eighteen years.29
World Phone India Pvt Ltd v WPI Group Inc USA
The Delhi High Court, relying on Rangaraj, held that SHA clauses on internal management are enforceable only if they are incorporated in the articles.30 Both the judgements when read together, suggest that the distinction lies between restrictions on transferability generally, which belong in the articles of association and the obligations of identified holders over their own shares, which operate in the contract.
Practical Implications
Drag-along clauses should be placed in both the SHA and the articles of association. Whenever a new shareholder is added a deed of adherence should be obtained.The minority holders should treat it as a negotiating point at investment, since remedies at exit are very limited.
Drafting checklist
- should define what or who may trigger the drag i.e. threshold, class consents, board approval
- require a written notice
- require the same price and form per class of shareholders
- limit dragged holders warranties to title, capacity and authority
- make liability several, capped at proceeds, with escrow.
- set a price floor with independent valuation for connected acquirers.
- keep power of attorney narrow and revocable and mirror the clauses in the articles.
Conclusion
Indian law supports drag-along clauses as contracts. For public companies the proviso to section 58(2) is of importance. Private companies should ground the drag along clause in their articles of association. The law is less settled than the statute suggests, since Rangaraj and World Phone leave a gap for terms located only in a Shareholder's agreement and Vodafone’s remarks were incidental. Fairness must therefore be drafted in the drag along clause, because notice, price parity, narrow warranties, capped liability and a price floor protect an exit more reliably. Two points require thinking. First one being an authoritative statement on whether SHA terms absent from the articles are enforceable and second a mandatory independent valuation for drags involving a related-party acquirer.
Footnotes
1. Vodafone International Holdings BV v Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613, para 65(b). Paragraph numbers follow the Indian Kanoon copy; the Bombay High Court cites paras 62–63 of that copy as paras 261–262 of the SCC report (Bajaj Auto (n 4) para 45).
2. Vodafone (n 1) para 65.
3. Companies Act 2013, s 58(2) and proviso.
4. Bajaj Auto Ltd v Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Ltd, Appeal No 153 of 2010 in Arbitration Petition No 174 of 2006 (Bom HC, 8 May 2015) para 40.
5. 57th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Companies Bill 2011, 86, as quoted in Bajaj Auto (n 4) para 39.
6. SEBI Notification No LAD-NRO/GN/2013-14/26/6667 (3 October 2013), as reproduced in Bajaj Auto (n 4) para 39.
7. Companies Act 2013, s 2(68).
8. Companies Act 2013, s 236.
9. Companies Act 2013, ss 241–242.
10. Bajaj Auto (n 4) para 35.
11. Bajaj Auto (n 4) para 37.
12. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd (2021) 9 SCC 449.
13. VB Rangaraj v VB Gopalakrishnan (1992) 1 SCC 160, paras 6–7.
14. ibid paras 6, 9.
15. Vodafone (n 1) para 62.
16. ibid para 63.
17. ibid para 64.
18. ibid para 66.
19. ibid para 68.
20. Bajaj Auto (n 4) paras 2, 6, 20–21.
21. ibid para 3.
22. ibid paras 25–32.
23. ibid para 37.
24. ibid para 36.
25. Messer Holdings Ltd v Shyam Madanmohan Ruia (2010) 59 Comp Cas 29 (Bom), as cited in Bajaj Auto (n 4) paras 33–34, 38–40, 43–45.
26. Messer Holdings Ltd v Shyam Madanmohan Ruia (2016) 11 SCC 484, paras 2, 14.
27. ibid paras 27, 37.
28. ibid para 40.
29. ibid paras 43–45.
30. World Phone India Pvt Ltd v WPI Group Inc USA [2013] 178 Comp Cas 173 (Del).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.