9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Violation of section 295 of the Companies Act regarding loan given to a director's wife, determination of whether the advance constituted a loan or a salary advance.
In this case, a private limited company and its directors were accused of violating section 295 of the Companies Act by providing an advance to the wife of one of the directors, which was deemed recoverable from her salary. The prosecution alleged that this advance constituted a loan under the Act. The trial court convicted the accused based on the definition of "loan" and sentenced them to pay a fine. The key argument raised in the revision petition was that the advance given should not be considered a loan under section 295. The judge emphasized that the distinction between a loan and a salary advance lies in the capacity of the recipient. It was highlighted that if the advance was given to the wife of a director in her capacity as an employee, it would be a salary advance, not a loan. The court stressed the importance of considering various factors such as the recipient's employment status, consistency with company practices, repayment conditions, and absence of evidence indicating circumvention of the law in determining whether the advance was a genuine salary advance or a disguised loan. The judge concluded that in the absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's claim of a disguised loan, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the revision petition was allowed.
|
