Skip to content
Companies Act / Winding Up

379. Winding Up on ‘Just and Equitable’ Grounds: The Deadlock Scenario

Deadlock is the classic “just and equitable” ground, but it is not every disagreement. The NCLT requires a functional paralysis of decision-making, not merely a minority shareholder’s dissatisfaction with the majority’s commercial decisions.

29 Oct 20262 min read

The Statutory Ground

Section 271(1)(e) permits winding up where the NCLT is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to wind up the company. The deadlock scenario is the most common invocation: the shareholders or the board are so divided that the company’s affairs cannot be conducted, and the deadlock cannot be resolved by the company’s internal mechanisms.

The Threshold for Deadlock

Not every disagreement is a deadlock. The NCLT requires evidence that the decision-making organs are paralysed—for example, repeated board meetings that cannot pass resolutions, shareholder meetings that are deadlocked on ordinary resolutions, or a constitutional arrangement that gives each faction a veto. A single disputed resolution or a difference of opinion on business strategy is insufficient.

The Alternative Remedy

The NCLT may refuse winding up where another remedy is available and is more appropriate. A Section 241 oppression petition, a buyout, or a contractual dispute-resolution mechanism may be a better remedy. The petitioner should address the alternative remedy in the petition, explaining why winding up is the only just outcome.

The Quasi-Partnership Dimension

Where the company is a quasi-partnership, the breakdown of mutual trust and confidence may support a just-and-equitable winding up even without a formal deadlock. The NCLT examines the original understanding between the members, the equitable principles governing their relationship, and whether the breakdown is irretrievable.

The Consequences

A winding-up order has drastic consequences: the company ceases to carry on business, the liquidator takes control, and the employees and creditors are affected. The NCLT exercises the jurisdiction sparingly, and the petitioner must establish that the prejudice outweighs the disruption.

Call to Action: For deadlock assessment, just-and-equitable winding-up strategy, or alternative-remedy analysis, contact office@anujdesaiassociates.com or 9619456656. Website: https://anujdesaiassociates.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/ca-anuj-desai-122547230.

Compliance Guidewinding up just and equitabledeadlock winding upsection 271(e)just equitable winding updeadlock company Indiaquasi partnership winding upwinding up alternative remedyNCLT winding up deadlockjust equitable legal opiniondeadlock oppressionAnuj Desai Associates winding up advisory
Share

Related insights

Companies Act / Board Governance

Section 185 Loans to Directors: The 2023 Amendment and Its Impact

A technical breakdown of Section 185 after the 2023 amendment: the surviving prohibition, the special resolution gateway, and the documentation conditions that determine whether a director loan is defensible before the ROC or NCLT.

29 Oct 2026

Companies Act / Treasury & Investment Compliance

Section 186 Loans and Investments: Calculating the 60%/100% Limits

How the 60%/100% outer limit actually works, why the higher figure governs, and the three-tier approval chain that determines when a board resolution is no longer sufficient for loans, guarantees, securities, and investments.

29 Oct 2026

Companies Act / Inter-Corporate Transactions

Inter-Corporate Deposits (ICDs) and Section 186 Compliance

The ICD is not a standalone instrument. It is a Section 186 deployment that must satisfy the aggregate ceiling, the board-resolution-first rule, and the G-sec floor on interest—three conditions that are tested independently.

29 Oct 2026

Work with ADA

Ready to talk to an advisor?

Book a consultation and get a clear, considered view from a team that handles audit, tax, regulatory and cross-border work under one roof.