Useful interpretations about companies act, 2013 - part-1

Co Act 2013 10679 views 20 replies

Dear Professional Colleagues,

 

During the process of decoding new provisions and stipulations of Companies Act, 2013, I have observed below mentioned interpretations about few important topics which affect our day to day corporate working. This write up may be considered as part-1 of its kind. I am sure in future I’ll be able to share more such interpretations and practices.

 

  1. Resignation of Director u/s 168 [DIR-11]

 

As per first proviso to section 168(1), if a director wants to resign, he has to file copy of his resignation letter with reasons of resignation directly with ROC also with Form DIR.11 under his Digital Signature. It means it will be mandatory for all directors to have Digital Signature sooner or later.

 

Discussion regarding Form DIR-11 under Companies Act, 2013

 

I have gone through form DIR.11 prescribed for the resignation of Director. As per new rule it is duty of resigning director to file DIR.11 along with his resignation letter. I have 2 observations w.r.t. form DIR-11 which is to be filed by the director who has resigned from his post:

 

  1. Point no. 6 in form DIR-11 inquires whether confirmation is received from the company w.r.t. the resignation of Director. As per my understanding if we mention “NO” in the E-form, there will be no issue in future as confirmation of resignation from company is not mandatory u/s 168.

 

  1. Further attachment section of form DIR-11, asks for proof of dispatch. Now the question is --- Is there any requirement of formal dispatch through post which generates proof of dispatch? My Answer is “NO”.

 

We can use scan copy of “receiving” of resignation letter given by responsible official of the company in case of personal delivery. Further scan copy of printout of resignation E-mail would be enough as proof of dispatch.

 

This short note is just an opinion and open for discussion.

 

  1. Procedural Applicability of KMP provisions to Private Companies

 

As per my understanding of rules Private Companies are excluded from sub-section (1) of section 203. Hence private companies are not required to appoint KMP. Sub-section (1) is a different provision altogether and is not in any way linked to sub-sections (2) and (3).

 

However, we cannot say that remaining body of section 203 is not applicable to private companies. Sub-section (2) and (3) of section 203 deals with procedure for appointment of KMPs in general.   Sub-section (1) is a kind of independent section in itself.

 

So if a private company or a public company having less than 10 crore paid up capital appoints CFO or CEO or CS and designate them as KMP, then it is very much required to follow the procedure given in Sub-section (2) of section 203. So we have to treat Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) independently.

 

For removal of doubts:

 

  1. As per my opinion a private company can appoint a CFO or CEO or CS without following the procedure given in Sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 203 provided the appointee is not assigned the status of KMP as sub-section (1) of section 203 is not applicable to a private company.

 

However if such private company designate such appointee as KMP then provision given in sub-section(2), (3) and (4) shall become applicable.

 

  1. Similarly a private company which already have a CFO along with CS, before the implementation of the new Act, is not required to re-confirm the appointment of the CFO by the procedures mentioned in Sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 203 in new Act, if the CFO and CS were not designated as KMP at the time of their appointment.

 

This short note is just an opinion and open for discussion.

 

  1. Documents required for appointment of Directors/Independent Directors

 

Companies Act, 2013 has prescribed following documents to be collected from proposed director for the purpose of appointment under applicable sections- 149, 150, 152 and 164:

 

  1. Consent in writing to act as Director in form DIR-2 pursuant to Rule-8 of Companies (Appointment & Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.

 

  1. Intimation in Form DIR-8 pursuant to Rule-14 in terms of Companies (Appointment & Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, to the effect that he/she is not disqualified u/s 164(2) of Companies Act, 2013.

 

Additional Document for appointment of Independent Director

 

  1. A declaration to the effect that proposed Director meets the criteria of Independence as provided u/s 149(6) of Companies Act, 2013.

 

  1. Registration and Condonation of delay in case of Charge

 

Registration of creation or modification of charge: As per rule 3 of Companies (Registration of Charges) Rules, 2014, for registration of charge as provided in sub-section (1) of section 77, section 78 and section 79, the particulars of the charge together with a copy of the instrument, if any, creating or modifying the charge is to be filed in Form No. CHG-1 (for other than Debentures) or Form No. CHG-9 (for debentures including rectification), as the case may be, duly signed by the company and the charge holder and filed with the Registrar within a period of 30 days of the date of creation or modification of charge along with the fee.

 

Condonation of delay by ROC: As per rule 4, now the condonation of delay beyond 30 days but upto and within 300 days of creation of charge lies with ROC and he will decide the additional fee. In case such charge is to be created within 30 days only Form CHG.1 is needed. But the charge is beyond 30 days but within 300 days then firstly form CHG.10 is to be filed with declaration from the company signed by its secretary or director that such belated filing shall not adversely affect rights of any other intervening creditors of the company and after it form CHG.1 is to be filed.

 

Condonation of delay by Central Government: As per rule 12, in case:

 

  1. Form CHG.1 for registration of charge is not filed within extended time of 300 days from the date of its creation or;

 

  1. Form CHG.4 towards satisfaction of charge (Rule 8) is not filed within 30 days from satisfaction.

 

Online application in form CHG.8 is to be made to Central Government for seeking Condonation of delay by Central Government for extension of time for filing particular of said charges. In Companies Act, 2013, no need to file any petition of seeking Condonation of delay by Central Government.

 

For my other Corporate Law Articles on Companies Act, 2013, Kindly refer the links mentioned below:

 

  1. List of Resolutions to be filed with ROC in Form MGT.14

 

  1. Procedure for Appointment of Additional Director in CA 2013

 

  1. Different Monetary Limits under Companies Act 2013

 

  1. Companies to have Uniform Financial year under CA 2013

 

 

Disclaimer:

This write up is intended to start academic discussion on few significant interpretations under Companies Act, 2013. It is not intended to be a professional advice and should not be relied upon for real time professional facts. Readers are advised to refer relevant provision of law before applying or accepting any of the point mentioned above. Author accepts no responsibility whatsoever and will not be liable for any losses, claims or damages which may arise because of the contents of this write up.

 

I am very hopeful that this write up would be of some help to understand the concepts in new Companies Act, 2013.

 

 

Thanks

CS Ankur Garg

Connect through Facebook

Replies (20)

Dear Sir,

Thanks for very valuable informaion.

 

Sir,  pls suggest on  Procedure and applicable section on Reappointment of Executive director for 3 years  for Unlisted public companies and paid up capital is below Rs.10 crore,

We do not want to reappoint him as KMP.BUT WE need to re-appoint him as ED for 3 years.

 

pls suggest

Ankurji, one small correction  please.  There is no Form CHG.10.  If we refer Official Gazette, as per Rule 4, application for condonation of delay (within 300 days from the  date of creation  of charge) has to be made in Form CHG.1 only.

Thanks

 

Thanks PC Sir for taking note of the post.

 

The copy of Charge rule I am having talks about CHG.10 through Rule 4(2). I am under the impression that this form has not yet been notified by MCA.

Is this a clerical error in the Rule. Please guide. I have not crossed check the same from Official Gazette.

 

Ankur


 

Dear Ankurji,

 

As desired, copy of Official Gazette notification is attached for your  reference.  You will find that there is variation in the unsigned/undated Rules on MCA website and the Official Gazette copy.

 

Regards,

 

 

Hello,

 

We, a Private Limited Company, wish to appoint our Whole Time Director as MAnaging Director of the Company.   Please advise if the following steps are correct:

 

1.  Board resolution for appointment as MD (by specifying his terms of employment)

2. Resolution also to state change of his designation from WTD to MD

 

Forms

 

MR-1  (appointment as MD)

MGT-14  (Appointment as MD)

DIR-12 (change of designation)

 

It is required for us to take shareholder's approval also??    OR, if we take shareholders approval then should we follow Schedule V and appoint MD for 5 years but pass resolution for remuneration only for 3 years??   

 

regards

 

Sir,

 

  1. You have rightly quoted the E-forms to be filed.
  2. As per my understanding only board resolution is enough as in case of private company, schedule V not applicable. Reason being appointment of MD is primarily governed by section 203 read with section 196. Section 203 and KMP rules are not applicable on Private companies.
  3. It is advisable to collect DIR.2 and DIR.8 before appointment.
  4. Also check if proposed MD candidate want to submit his revised form MBP.1.

 

Thanks

Ankur

Dear Ankur ji,

 

I think schedule V is not applicable because it gives reference to Section 197 which is applicable to Public Limited Companies only.   But Section 197 is predominantly for total limit on managerial remuneration and not for remueration in case of loss or inadequate profit  (please guide me if I am wrong).

 

Also, in my discussion with one of the Big 4 audit firms, they gave me a specific comment saying that limits on managerial remuneration (section 197) is not applicable to private company, however in case of loss / inadequate profit, schedule V compliance is required to be done by both private and public, otherwise CG approval will be required.

 

This is where I am confused and want your guidance.

 

regards

Dear sirs,

Your valuable suggestion reqd on clarity of KMP in filing the forms.As on both the forms (MR-1 AND DIR-12)  there is word written "KMP".

 

so for Whole time director  -MR-1 will be filed but suppose if  co is not mandated to have KMP ,then still DIR-12 is to be filed??

 

Section 203- stipulates the applicability

Section 196, schedule V etc --stipulates procedures.

so if whole time director is reappointed for 3 years and he is not KMP how to show that it is not KMP ??

pl.suggest only filing of form  MR-1 is enough

regds

 

 

I am confused now.

 

You’ve started your query with appointed and in your last reply completely shifted to remuneration and analyzing applicability of Schedule V on the basis of section 197 from the point of view of remuneration.

 

I think the applicability of Schedule V on private companies “regarding appointment” needs to analyzed on the basis of section 203 and 196 itself.

 

Anyways let’s move further.

 

It seems the opinion of BIG.4 is just to save their skin. When main remuneration section 197 with its limits is not applicable to a private company then how section II of part II of Schedule V on private companies. I think the opinion of BIG.4 is based on the word “a company” used in section II of part II of Schedule V.

 

Kindly appreciate in section II of part II of Schedule XIII of CA, 1956, the word used was also same i.e. “a company”. Inadequacy of profit is totally derived from the remuneration limits given in Act and these limits are not applicable to a private company. So the question is how to decide the inadequacy of profit in private companies?


Thanks

Kindly appreciate form DIR.12 replaces form 32 which was there to report change in particulars of directors. DIR.12 is also handling reporting related to KMP.

 

Further rule 18 of Chapter 11 - The Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, says a return containing the particulars of appointment of director or key managerial personnel and changes therein, shall be filed with the Registrar in Form DIR-12.

 

For re-appointment of whole time director we used to file form 25C and 32 under CA, 1956. Now we have to file DIR.12 and MR-1. 

Further you do not need to show that he is not KMP. Kindly appreciate for appointment of KMP specific board resolution u/s 203(2) would be required and filing of form MGT.14 and DIR.12 would be mandatory.

 

If you haven’t appoint someone as KMP, then how someone presume that he is KMP. So just relax.

Thanks a lot ankur sir !! got it now !!

Would like to draw your attention in the Form MR-1 and Rule 3 of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules 2014, which also mentioned in the same form. Rule 3 says a company has to file MR-1 for appointment of Key Managerial Personnel while sections mentioned therein, section 196, 197 and Schedule V are applicable for Managerial Personnel not on KMPs which includes CS, CEO, CFO. Few notable points about the Form MR-1 are:

1.    The clause 4 of the form is having options of CS/CEO/CFO as well, through sections mentioned at the top 196, 197 are not governing their appointments (Its Section 203 which talks about KMPs)
2.    Clauses 8 to 11 (disquilifications for appointment) are clearly not applicable on KMPs, they are those mentioned in the Section 196, 197 and Schedule V specifically for Managerial Personnel.

 

 

Would like to draw your attention in the Form MR-1 and Rule 3 of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules 2014, which also mentioned in the same form. Rule 3 says a company has to file MR-1 for appointment of Key Managerial Personnel while sections mentioned therein, section 196, 197 and Schedule V are applicable for Managerial Personnel not on KMPs which includes CS, CEO, CFO. Few notable points about the Form MR-1 are:

1.    The clause 4 of the form is having options of CS/CEO/CFO as well, through sections mentioned at the top 196, 197 are not governing their appointments (Its Section 203 which talks about KMPs)
2.    Clauses 8 to 11 (disquilifications for appointment) are clearly not applicable on KMPs, they are those mentioned in the Section 196, 197 and Schedule V specifically for Managerial Personnel.

 


CCI Pro

Leave a Reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register