Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
BOARD OF DIRECTOR
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

BOARD OF DIRECTOR

6,282
views

Published on

POWERS, DUTIES & LIABILITIES OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR in context to Companies Act 1956

POWERS, DUTIES & LIABILITIES OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR in context to Companies Act 1956

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
6,282
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. POWERS, DUTIES & LIABILITIES OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR Presented by:- Amit Roy Anurag Kumar Jha B P Prabhu Raj Rubina Avirendra Singh Chandamita Deka
  • 2. POWERS Section 292(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that the Board of directors of accompany shall exercise the following powers on behalf of the company and it shall do soon by means of resolution passed at meeting of the Board:(a) the power to make calls on shareholders in respect of money unpaid on their shares;(b) the power to issue debentures;(c) the power to borrow moneys otherwise than on debentures;(d) the power to invest funds of the company; and(e) the power to make loan.
  • 3. DUTIESDuties of the directors are mainly divided into two parts. They are:-1. Statutory Duties2. General Duties
  • 4. Statutory Duties(A) To file return of allotment: Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires acompany to file with the Registrar, within a period of 30 days(B) Not to issue irredeemable preference share or shares or share redeemable after 20years: Section 80, as amended by Amendment Act, 1996, forbids a company toissue irredeemable preference shares or preference shares redeemable beyond 20years.(C) To disclose interest (Section 299-300): In respect of contracts with director, Section299 casts an obligation on a director to disclose the nature of his concern or interest(direct or indirect), if any, at a meeting of the Board of directors.(D) To disclose receipt from transfer of property (sec. 319): Any money received by the director from the transferee in connection with the transfer of the companysproperty or undertaking must be disclosed to the members of the company andapproved by the company in general meeting. Otherwise, the amount shall be heldby the directors in trust for the company.
  • 5. Statutory Duties(E) To disclose receipt of compensation from transferee of shares (Sec.320): If the lossof office results from the transfer (under certain conditions) of all or any of the sharesof the company, its directors would not receive any compensation from thetransferee unless the same has been approved by the company in general meetingbefore the transfer takes place.(F) Duty to attend Board meetings. [Section 283(1)(g)](G) To convene statutory, Annual General meeting (AGM) and also extraordinarygeneral meetings [ Section 165,166 &169](H) To prepare and place at the AGM along with the balance sheet and profit & lossaccount a report on the companys affairs including the report of the Board ofDirectors (Section 173, 210 & 217).(I) To authenticate and approve annual financial statement (Section 215).(J) To appoint first auditor of the company (Section 224).(K) To appoint cost auditor of the company (Section 233B).(L) To make a declaration of solvency in the case of Members’ voluntary winding up(Section 488).
  • 6. General Duties(A) Duty of good faith: The directors must act in the best interest of the company.Interest of the company implies the interest of the present and future members of thecompany on the footing that company would be continued as going concern.(B) Duty of care: A director must display care in performance of work assigned to him.He is, however, not expected to display an extraordinary care but that much carewhich a man of ordinary prudence would take in his own case. Any provision in thecompanys Articles or in any agreement that excludes the liability of the directors fornegligence, default, misfeasance, breach of duty or breach of trust, is void. Thecompany cannot even indemnify the directors against such liability.(C) Duty not to delegate: Director being an agent is bound by the maxim. delegatus nonpotest delegare. which means a delegatee can not further delegate. Thus, a directormust perform his functions personally. However, he may delegate his in certainconditions.
  • 7. LIABILITESLiability to the company:(A) Breach of fiduciary duty: where a director acts dishonestly to the interest of thecompany, he will be held liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Most of the powers ofdirectors are .powers in trust. and therefore, should be exercised in the interest ofthe company and not in the interest of the directors or any section of members.(B) Ultra vires acts: Directors are supposed to act within the parameters of theprovisions of the Companies Act, Memorandum and Articles of Association, sincethese lay down the limits to the activities of the company and consequently to thepowers of the Board of directors. (C) Negligence: As long as the directors act within their powers with reasonable skill andcare as expected of them as prudent businessman, they discharge their duties to thecompany. But where they fail to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence, theyshall be deemed to have acted negligently in discharge of their duties andconsequently shall be liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom.(D) Mala fide acts: Directors are the trustee for the moneys and property of the companyhandled by them, as well as exercise of the powers vested in them. If theydishonestly or in a mala fide manner, exercise their powers and perform their duties,they will be liable for breach of trust and may be required to make good the loss ordamage suffered by the company by reason of such mala fide acts.
  • 8. LIABILITESLiability to third parties:(A) Prospectus: Failure to state any particulars as per the requirement of the section56 and Schedule II of the act or mis-statement of facts in prospectus renders adirector personally liable for damages to the third party. Section 62 provides that adirector shall be liable to pay compensation(B) With regard to allotment: Directors may also incur personal liability for:(a) Irregular allotment, i.e., allotment before minimum subscription is received(Section 69), or without filing a copy of the statement in lieu of prospectus(Section 70) - [Section 71(3)](b) For failure to repay application monies in case of minimum subscriptionhaving not been received within 120 days of the opening of the issue: Undersection 69(5) read with SEBI guidelines, in case moneys are not repaidwithin 130 days(c) Failure to repay application monies when application for listing of securitiesare not made or is refused: Under section 73(2) . where the permission forlisting of the shares of the company has not been applied or such permissionhaving been applied for, has not been granted, the company shall forthwithrepay without interest all monies received from the applicants in pursuance ofthe prospectus, and, if any such money is not repaid within eight days afterthe company becomes liable to repay
  • 9. LIABILITES(C) Unlimited liability: Directors will also be held personally liable to the third partieswhere their liability is made unlimited in pursuance of section 322(i.e., videMemorandum) or section 323(i.e., vide alterations of Memorandum by passingspecial resolution). By virtue of section 322, the Memorandum of a company maymake the liability of any or all directors, or manager unlimited (D) Fraudulent trading: Directors may also be made personally liable for the debts orliabilities of a company by an order of the court under section 542. Such an ordershall be made by the court where the directors have been found guilty of fraudulenttrading. Section 542(1)
  • 10. LIABILITES1. Liability for breach of warranty:Directors are supposed to function within the scope of their authority. Thus, where they transactany business in resect of matters, ultra vires the company or ultra vires the articles, they may beproceeded against personally for any loss sustained by any third party.2. Liability for breach of statutory duties:The Companies Act, 1956 imposes numerous statutory duties on the directors under varioussections of the Act. Default in compliance of these duties attract penal consequences. Thevarious statutory penalties which directors may incur by reason of non-compliance with therequirements of Companies Act are referred to in their appropriate places.3. Liability for acts of co-directors:A director is the agent of the company except for matters to be dealt with by the company ingeneral meeting and not of the other members of the Board. Accordingly, nothing done by theBoard can impose liability on a director who did not participate in the Board.s action or did notknow about it.
  • 11. Case Study
  • 12. Rajasthan High CourtHerdillia Unimers Ltd. vs Arun Bansal on 10 May, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1999 96 CompCas 521 Raj Bench: Y Meena JUDGMENT
  • 13. By this petition it is prayed that Criminal Complaint No. 59 of 1993 as also the proceedings taken thereonby the trial court Special Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, be quashed and set aside.
  • 14. Case facts The petitioner-company, Herdillia Unimers Ltd., for the purpose of increasing its capital came out with apublic issue of shares and debentures in the year 1992. The said public issue was to commence on June 1,1992, and scheduled to close on June 11, 1992. The public issue having been oversubscribed it was dulyclosed on June 4, 1992, being the earliest scheduled date of closing. Under the terms and conditions of theaforesaid allotment, any person could apply for shares and/or debentures. Every applicant was required to paya sum of Rs, 10 per equity share and a sum of Rs. 200 per debenture, as the case may be.
  • 15. • as the public issue was oversubscribed the applications for allotments of the shares/debentures were processed,examined and considered at at the office of the herdillia at bombay.• In the event of allotment of shares/debentures, certificates were sent and in the case of non- allotment, the money was refunded by herdillia ltd. From its bombay office.
  • 16. • Arun bansal and his wife vimlesh bansal, were disappointed applicants who had not been alloted shares or debentures.• The company refunded their money RS,3000 each, by cheques. however, the cheques were not encashed which was discovered by company on an reconciliation of its accounts with the bankers, American Express Bank Ltd.• Later the company refunded their money,Rs.3000 each, by cheques however the cheques were not encashed.
  • 17. • The company sent a demand draft for Rs.3,675 each, including the interest on the sum sent by applicants.(int. rate ranges bet. 04-15%).• This time, the demand drafts were sent by registered post.• section 73 prescribes a time period for refund.(8 days from the day company become liable to pay)as the time period was long over and the bansals had not actually got their money, they filed a complaint before the special court of judicial magistrate(economic offences), jaipur ,claiming a violation of section 73.
  • 18. • The company fulfilled all its duties even by paying the interest for the time duration,there fore company had not commited any offence.• The company contends that as bansals were not share holders, they were not eligible to file a complaint(U section621-631).but the bansals argued that once a person applied for an allotment of shares of a company and no information was received by him,it should be deemed that he was a share holder.
  • 19. Judgement given by the Hon. judge Y.R. Meena, states as below:- When the share/debenture has not been allotted to the respodent and his wife and the money has been refunded then there is no question of treating them as shareholders,as such they are not competent to file the complaint in any court and no court shall take cognizance on such complaints.further, admittedly, the alleged offence, on the facts of this case is not covered in the category of offences enumerated under section 545of the companies act.