Lost in restatement: the dispute resolution clause and the AoA

Incorporating the dispute resolution clause from the shareholders’ agreement, while restating the articles of association of a Company shouldn’t be as polarizing as it currently is

Introduction

A shareholders’ agreement (SHA) does the heavy lifting in any investment. It records who sits on the board, which matters need whose consent, how shares may (and may not) be transferred, and how disputes between the parties are to be resolved. Restating the articles of association (AoA) to mirror the SHA is, almost invariably, the last step at closing, and by then little patience remains. Why is not hard to see. By then, money and shares have usually changed hands, the FEMA compliances (if applicable) are usually done, and so are the allotment, the PAS-3 return, issuance of the share certificates or demat credit, and the MGT-14 and other ROC filings. Each party has what it came for.

In this framework, the restatement of the AoA often gets treated as a formality, and in it the dispute resolution clause is quite often left behind, on the reasoning that arbitration is a contractual matter and has no place in the Articles- a widely adopted, but risky, assumption. The commercial incentive to argue over a “boilerplate” clause in the Articles is low.

In this article, we explain how, when a dispute arises, the forum is decided by what the Articles say, not by what the SHA intended, and therefore the correct restatement of the Articles is relevant for all stakeholders.

The legal position

Section 10(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that the memorandum and articles, once registered, bind the company and its members to the same extent as if each member and the company had signed them. The Articles are, in that sense, the statutory contract of the company.

In the landmark judgment of V.B. Rangaraj v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan (Supreme Court, 1991), the Supreme Court held that a restriction on transfer agreed between shareholders, but not contained in the Articles, bound neither the company nor its shareholders.

At the shareholder level, the rights captured in an SHA are rights against each other and against the Company. A right to nominate a director, a veto on a reserved matter, a right of first refusal: each is exercised in, and against, the Company, and has to be adopted into the Articles to be enforceable. The forum for resolving disputes about those rights belongs to the same bundle. It is not a private right against another individual or entity, but a right of a shareholder with respect to the other shareholders and the Company, and cannot be treated as a merely contractual right that need not be addressed in the Articles.

What the courts have said

The tribunals have applied this consistently. In Akshya Ispat Udyog v. Ishwardas Rasiwasia Agrawal (Company Law Board, 2014), an arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement was held not to bind the Company, as the Articles had never been amended to carry it. The Board relied on World Phone India v. WPI Group (Delhi High Court, 2013), that a shareholder right absent from the Articles cannot be insisted upon against the company; on Umesh Kumar Baveja v. IL&FS Transportation Networks (Delhi High Court, 2013), that an arbitration clause in a share subscription agreement has no effect once the restated Articles omit it; and on Sumitomo Corporation v. CDC Financial Services (Supreme Court, 2008), that a company is bound only by an arbitration agreement to which it is a party. In Myen PTE v. Rahul Narang (Company Law Board, 2014), the Board distilled the position: a reference to arbitration is not maintainable where the company is not a party to the arbitration agreement, or where its Articles carry no arbitration clause.

The risk does not end at closing. In Arvind Kumar Raghuvanshi v. HI IN Concepts (Telangana High Court, 2026), the arbitration clause sat in the company’s original Articles, but did not survive a later adoption of new Articles. With the very existence of the arbitration agreement in doubt, the Court declined to appoint an arbitrator, leaving the parties to fight the threshold question before the NCLT.

The contrary view, and why it does not hold

The contrary view deserves a fair statement. In Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2012), the Supreme Court declined to subscribe to the view that SHA restrictions are enforceable only once incorporated in the Articles. Messer Holdings v. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia (Bombay High Court, 2010) upheld a right of first refusal agreed between shareholders, a position now reflected in Section 58(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. Sidharth Gupta v. Getit Infoservices (Company Law Board, 2016) referred an oppression petition to arbitration under an SHA clause absent from the Articles, and Dhanuka Agritech v. IoTechWorld Avigation (Delhi High Court, 2025) gave interim effect to an affirmative vote found only in the SHA.

None of these, however, reaches the point. Vodafone did not overrule V.B. Rangaraj, and itself describes an SHA as binding its parties, not the remaining shareholders. Messer Holdings speaks of enforcement as a contract between those who made it, while Sidharth Gupta and Dhanuka Agritech each rested on the company itself having signed the SHA. A contractual remedy between signatories is valuable, but it is not a forum that binds the Company and every shareholder.

Conclusion

The real question, then, is not whether the SHA’s dispute resolution clause is valid, because it is, but whom it binds and before which forum. The safer course does not depend on how the Rangaraj–Vodafone debate is eventually settled.

Given the clear risk in the intention of the parties to the SHA not carrying through, if the Articles do not incorporate the dispute resolution clause, it is advisable that the clause should be carried into the restated Articles in identical terms. The Company should also be made a party to the SHA, since some decisions mentioned above treat the two as complementary, not alternatives.

None of this adds a day to closing. It involves copying a clause that has already been negotiated, which is why it should not be polarizing at closing.

This update is for general information only and is not legal advice.

Feel free to reach out to us with your queries at legal@benevolentlawchambers.com