[The
author is an Advocate at the Bombay High Court, and can be contacted at [email protected]]
author is an Advocate at the Bombay High Court, and can be contacted at [email protected]]
Under the Companies Act, 1956
(“1956 Act”), it was settled law
that a resolution proposing the removal of a director before expiry of his
period of office under s. 284 of the 1956 Act would have to satisfy the
numerical requirements prescribed by s. 188 of the 1956 Act (see for example, http://taxguru.in/company-law/member-shareholding-stipulated-sec188-seek-resolutions-included-circulation.html).
(“1956 Act”), it was settled law
that a resolution proposing the removal of a director before expiry of his
period of office under s. 284 of the 1956 Act would have to satisfy the
numerical requirements prescribed by s. 188 of the 1956 Act (see for example, http://taxguru.in/company-law/member-shareholding-stipulated-sec188-seek-resolutions-included-circulation.html).
The numerical requirements
laid down in s. 188 of the 1956 Act were:-
laid down in s. 188 of the 1956 Act were:-
1. such number of members as represent
at least 5% of the total voting power; or
at least 5% of the total voting power; or
2. at least 100 members holding shares
on which at least Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid up. (“Numerical Requirement A”)
on which at least Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid up. (“Numerical Requirement A”)
However, the Companies Act,
2013 (“2013 Act”) prescribes two
different numerical requirements to propose a resolution for the removal of a
director before the expiry of his period of office – one more diluted and the
other more stringent than the one in the 1956 Act.
2013 (“2013 Act”) prescribes two
different numerical requirements to propose a resolution for the removal of a
director before the expiry of his period of office – one more diluted and the
other more stringent than the one in the 1956 Act.
S. 169 of the 2013 Act (which
has replaced s.284 of the 1956 Act) states that a special notice would
be required to remove directors. The requirement for such special notice was
also found in s. 284(2) of the 1956 Act – but there is one important
difference.
has replaced s.284 of the 1956 Act) states that a special notice would
be required to remove directors. The requirement for such special notice was
also found in s. 284(2) of the 1956 Act – but there is one important
difference.
A combined reading of s. 115
of the 2013 Act and Rule 23 of The Companies (Management and Administration)
Rules, 2014 indicates that a special notice may be given by members holding:-
of the 2013 Act and Rule 23 of The Companies (Management and Administration)
Rules, 2014 indicates that a special notice may be given by members holding:-
1. at least 1% of the total voting
power; or
power; or
2. shares on which at least Rs.
5,00,000/- has been paid. (“Numerical Requirement B”)
5,00,000/- has been paid. (“Numerical Requirement B”)
It is thus seen that the
numerical requirements to give special notice for removal of directors under
the 2013 Act have been diluted as opposed to the 1956 Act. The possible
reason for this is that there was no numerical requirement defined for a
special notice under the 1956 Act and which now finds place in the 2013 Act.
numerical requirements to give special notice for removal of directors under
the 2013 Act have been diluted as opposed to the 1956 Act. The possible
reason for this is that there was no numerical requirement defined for a
special notice under the 1956 Act and which now finds place in the 2013 Act.
The counter argument to this
would be that s. 188 of the 1956 Act has been replaced by s.111 of the 2013
Act. S. 111 of the 2013 Act provides for circulation of members’ resolution and
requires the following numerical requirements (under s.100 of the 2013 Act):-
would be that s. 188 of the 1956 Act has been replaced by s.111 of the 2013
Act. S. 111 of the 2013 Act provides for circulation of members’ resolution and
requires the following numerical requirements (under s.100 of the 2013 Act):-
1. in case the company has a share
capital, members holding at least 10% of the paid up share capital carrying
voting rights; or
capital, members holding at least 10% of the paid up share capital carrying
voting rights; or
2. in case the company has no share
capital, members holding at least 10% of the voting powers. (“Numerical
Requirement C”)
capital, members holding at least 10% of the voting powers. (“Numerical
Requirement C”)
It is thus seen that Numerical
Requirement C (under the 2013 Act) is more stringent than Numerical
Requirement A (under the 1956 Act) for circulation of members’ resolutions.
Requirement C (under the 2013 Act) is more stringent than Numerical
Requirement A (under the 1956 Act) for circulation of members’ resolutions.
Ultimately, it will have to
be seen whether the regulators or the courts adopt Numerical Requirement B
(i.e. the more diluted one) or Numerical Requirement C (i.e. the more stringent
one) to evaluate eligibility of member resolutions purporting to remove
directors.
be seen whether the regulators or the courts adopt Numerical Requirement B
(i.e. the more diluted one) or Numerical Requirement C (i.e. the more stringent
one) to evaluate eligibility of member resolutions purporting to remove
directors.
– Chinmaya H. Gajaria
