Please Wait ..

Sign-in to your account


Username:
Password:

Remember Me

Forgot your password?

Sign-up now



Join CAclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc.


Discussion > Corporate Law > Others >

Section 217(2A) Companies Act

    Post New Topic
Pages : 1 2





Self Employed


[ Scorecard : 857]
Posted On 20 May 2009 at 14:51 Report Abuse

Dear Members

Kindly clarify whether the Managing Director of a Company will be termed as Employee of the Company within the meaning of Section 217(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956.

(Note : My company MD is drawing remuneration in excess of Rs.2.00 lacs per month [24.00 lacs per annum]. I want to know whether the details of his remuneration need to be included with the Directors Report.

with regards

Muralidharan


Online classes for CA CS CMA



P C Agrawal
Vice President (Corporate)


[ Scorecard : 4682]
Posted On 21 May 2009 at 12:47

Yes pl.

 





CS P K Pandey
employed


[ Scorecard : 97]
Posted On 21 May 2009 at 17:27

Yes he is employee u/s 217(2A).




CS Ankur Srivastava
Company Secretary & Compliance Officer


[ Scorecard : 14951]
Posted On 16 July 2009 at 14:33

Whether Whole time Directos of the Company are employee u/s 217(2A)?




kamaljeet
C.S


[ Scorecard : 51]
Posted On 16 July 2009 at 18:09

No the Managing Director is not a employee of the Company under Section 217(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956.




Malav Shah
Company Secretary and AVP Legal


[ Scorecard : 171]
Posted On 16 July 2009 at 18:27

 Yes, MD is an employee of the Company. Many companies give this details in their report. Please check report of Infosys.




CS Ankur Srivastava
Company Secretary & Compliance Officer


[ Scorecard : 14951]
Posted On 17 July 2009 at 10:47

Dear Malav,

 

This is not the valid reason, many Companies also not give such details.

Neither  Managing Director  nor Whole Time Directors are employee of the Company,.

 

In my opinion the details of MD and WTD are not required to give under section 217(2A) as such they are not the employee of the Company under the Companies Act.  Moreover the under schedule VI the details of the managerial remuneration are required to give seperately, thus why we give same detail at two places.

Further, section 217(2A) also applies to the employees whose salary is less than Rs. 24 lacs per annum if their salary exceeds the salary of MD, WTD and Manager.




Ajay Mishra
Company Secretary


[ Scorecard : 73207]
Posted On 17 July 2009 at 19:49

 

Dear Mr. Murlidharan

 

Yes, details of MD other employee required to be discloseed under section 217(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Companies (Particulars of Employees) Rules, 1975 who drawing remuneration in excess of Rs.2.00 lacs per month [24.00 lacs per annum].



Total thanks : 1 times



CS Ankur Srivastava
Company Secretary & Compliance Officer


[ Scorecard : 14951]
Posted On 18 July 2009 at 10:24

Dear All,

In my opinion MD and WTD are not the employees of the Company, they are the Directors of the company and being a director they have entrusted some additional responsibilities and liabilities, so how can we categorised a director of company as a employee.

 

Their are separate provisions for the remuneration of MD or WTD or Manager and also shows separetaly.

 

Under section 217(2A) the particulars of employees whose salary exceeds Rs. 24 Lacs per annum or 2 Lacs per month are required to be disclosed (as per clause i and ii) and clause iii the details of such employees are required to be given whose remuneration is more than the remuneration of MD or WTD or Manager.

Thus according to me the details of WTD and MD should not be shown under section 217(2A). 

Please correct me if i am wrong.




Ankur Garg
Company Secretary and Compliance Officer


[ Scorecard : 104048]
Posted On 18 July 2009 at 10:51

Agree with Mr. Malav

 

The remuneration given to the MD being a contractual employee should be given in the board report u/s 217 (2A) if the remuneration exceeds the prescribed limits.

 

However in response to an old corporate query Deptt expressed contrary view. But it was just a view and doesn't have the force of law in the form of DCA Circular/Notification.

 

Regards



There are 17 Replies to this message





Related Files








Related Threads


Post your reply for Section 217(2A) Companies Act



Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to login


Not a member yet ?? Click here to signup

Message







    

  • Use thank button to convey your appreciation.
  • Maintain professionalism while posting and replying to topics.
  • Try to add value with your each post.




Forum Home | Forum Portal | Member Control Center | Who is Where | Popular Threads | Today's Topic | Recent Posts | Today's Posts | Post New Topic | Thread With Files | Top Threads This Month | Forum Stats | Unreplied Threads

back to the top