I am still confused between Sec. 252 and Sec 4. Explanations to Sec 4 does not provide the priviledge to a private co. which is a subsidiary of a public about having 2 directors?
Dear Niki,
There is no confusion whatsoever. For a private co. min. no. of dir. are 2.
Subsidiary status does not make any difference. So there is no need to worry.
Best Regards
since the private company which is a subsidiary of public company is considered as public company as per Companies Act 1956, the minimum directors should be 3
Dear Niki,
The Private company which is a subsidiary of public company is a Public Company as per section 3(1)(iv)(c). Therefore, in this case the requirement of director would be 3 and not 2.
This is simply unbelievable. No words to express.
Kindly don’t confuse others.
A private, company which is subsidiary of a public company, can 100% continue with minimum 2 members and minimum 2 directors u/s 252 (Section 252 deals with minimum number of directors).
You may go for any kind of legal consultancy in this world. Nobody can cross this simple interpretation under Companies Act, 1956.
Best Regards
Good one .But Mr Ankur sir the theory portion is reproduced by others in section 3 as it is and they say 3 and since you are well experienced you come out and say 2 definitely one has to get all this experience to comment on this issue.Thank u sir
Dear Sivaram, This is sheer lack of practical exposure and nothing else. By God's grace i don't need to refer book or bare act while discussing 90% of the quaries. Regards
I have confirmed the above matter with the ROC. It says that it allows companies to be incorporated as subsidiary of public company and having just 2 directors.
Well this is very surprising for me that every time we have to search for some case law or DCA clarification for this kind of plain interpretation. It was a simple and established one indeed. Anyways thanks dear Hardik for the attachment. Regards