Error in law practice manual - ch.3 ,pg 3.16 & 3.17?

@ CA Anurag - its exam time for us. please  dont create confusion in minds of students unless you are 100% sure.

 

First clarify yourself regarding the section also get clarification from MCA and post it here as a proof. 

Dear Karan & Rajat,

 

As told you few days back kindly find the below mentioned link of corrigendum issued by ICAI

https://220.227.161.86/37341bos26799.pdf

 

All the best 

ICAI approach/answer must be followed for exam purpose. but until unless any practical case come regarding this section, we cannot make any judgement, and interpretation is work of Court, ICAI is not court.

Dear Rajat, I think everybodies frst priority is to clear the examination . Think before writing anything  Originally posted by : Rajat Bajaj
	ICAI has already issued clarification for mistakes that are in Practice manual, no other mistake is there in Practice Manual, and Dear Anurag, you are saying what is need of sec 167 , firstly sec 167 covers many other points, not just about sec 164, and further if director has to vacate office then Parliament has authority to write directly in sec 164, they need not to write in sec 167 about sec 164. Law is very clear about it, you just need to interpret it, and ICAI will not issue any clarification about this unless MCA clarify anything about it, you can wait as much as you want to.

Hope u will take care in future 

i apologize for my comments regarding this matter.

that was my expectations, not any future predictions..

@ CA Anurag, before commenting anything i must first appreciate your efforts. yes i read the corregendum issued by icai just now, but did you noticed one thing? There is no signature or the name of issuing authority. the persons who had issued this corregendum are also not sure about this thats why there is no signature at the end. second thing, i am asking to you Mr Anurag, do you think it is logical that if a company does not file its returns for 3 years then all of its directors shall vacate the office? Then it will be a "board-less" company. Then how it will function? I think ICAI has issued this correction only for time being, (based on the emails they get, thats why nobody has taken responsibility regarding this correction in the said notification by icai. for the exam purpose we need to follow it, but its still wrong. The interpretation is not correct. Section 167 Intends to apply for section 164(1) Only and not to 164(2). I wish i could make the things clarified from icai and mca but already i am running in short time. Still i will try, icai will withdraw this corregendum. Its just made as per The mails received by icai from you but its absolutely wrong. i request you anurag to reconsider it in a practical approach.

Thank you all very much for sparing ur time and energy

Thanks a ton Anurag sir , I really appreciate ur efforts

 

Actually, i feel that there is one more error on the same pg 3.17 in Q.20 (iv)

The Q. says "Calendar" Years whereas the section 164 (2) has the words "Financial" Years

Anyway lets accept the PM wala Answer as for now

And Lets write a "Assumption"wala Note in Exam especially with so less time left to the exams

Once again a Big Thanks to All

I never thought it would evoke such a Response

Thanks

////////////

@ maithili : Yes u r right.it should be financial year. anyways, there r very few days left for the exam, so now we should focus on exams only. All d best.

Actully companies act 2013 Has linked section 167 With 164. It should be applicable only for 164(i) and not to entire 164. So, there is mischief in the act, rule of beneficial construction should be applied. ICAI do not have any power to amend the act nor to issue any clarifications regarding any section in the act, Unless it is supported by MCA. Hence the corregendum issued is purely for academic purpose and does not change the law. Hope MCA will soon issue the clarification regarding this. thats all. Thank you anurag, maithili, because of you guys i read all the sections very deeply...

Dear Karan,

KIndly refer the below mentioned link of MCA which cleary states 

 The office of a director shall become vacant in case—

A) He incors any of the disqualification specified in section 164 (Nowhere its mentioned section 164(1)

https://www.mca.gov.in/SearchableActs/Section167.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes dear anurag there is defect in the original act itself. It is a question of law and the same should be raised before supreme court. but my question was do you think all directors shall vacate the office? Then who will run the company? you did not answered this.

I think we were discussing about the disqualification for exam purposes and not about the practical senario 

 

For practical senario we can debate later on.