9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of sections 309(1) and 310 of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding professional fees and charges payable to a director who is also an advocate and solicitor. Analysis: The judgment in question dealt with the interpretation of sections 309(1) and 310 of the Companies Act, 1956, specifically focusing on whether professional fees and charges payable to a director who is also an advocate and solicitor continue to constitute 'remuneration' under the Act. The petition raised the issue of whether the Central Government's affirmative opinion, as required by the proviso to section 309(1), exempted such fees from being considered as remuneration. The Central Government had expressed its opinion affirmatively regarding the director's qualifications to act as legal adviser of the company but imposed a condition requiring prior approval for any payments under section 310 of the Act. The court analyzed the provisions of sections 309(1) and 310 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the distinction between 'remuneration' and 'managerial remuneration.' It noted that the legislative intent was to regulate remuneration for managerial services and that the proviso to section 309(1) created an exception for professional services rendered by a director who is also a qualified professional. The court highlighted that once the Central Government affirms the director's qualifications, fees for professional services should be excluded from remuneration and managerial remuneration control under the Act. The judgment emphasized that the impugned condition imposed by the Central Government negated the purpose of its affirmative opinion and rendered it ineffective. It highlighted the importance of recognizing the director's professional capacity separate from their directorial role and the need to distinguish between remuneration and managerial remuneration. The court cited the legislative history and the Shastri Committee's recommendations to support this distinction. Furthermore, the judgment discussed hypothetical scenarios involving qualified professionals who are also company directors, such as surgeons or chartered accountants, to illustrate the absurdity of considering professional fees as remuneration post the Central Government's affirmative opinion. It underscored that the Companies Act was not intended to regulate professional practice or fees but rather managerial remuneration. The court also referenced a Kerala High Court decision with similar facts to support its reasoning. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned condition and granting relief to the petitioners. It declared the order with the condition as quashed, ensuring the petitioners' entitlement to the benefits without the condition. The judgment concluded with a ruling in favor of the petitioners and no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
|
