9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the firms M/s. Techno Sales Corporation and M/s. Kumar Wire and Conductors were sole selling agents of the company, attracting the provisions of section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Whether the provisions of section 314(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 were applicable to the agreements with the firms. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Sole Selling Agents and Section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956: The primary issue was whether M/s. Techno Sales Corporation and M/s. Kumar Wire and Conductors were appointed as sole selling agents, which would necessitate compliance with section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Tribunal and the High Court examined the agreements and found that the firms were appointed as selling agents, not sole selling agents. The agreements did not grant exclusive rights to sell all products of the company to the exclusion of others. Specifically, the agreements stated that the firms were to act as selling agents for specific products within the State of Uttar Pradesh, and they were entitled to a commission of 1% on all sales within that state. The court noted that the term "sole selling agent" was not explicitly defined in the Companies Act, 1956. However, it interpreted the term in its ordinary sense to mean an exclusive right to sell all products of the principal. The court also referred to section 294(6) of the Companies Act, which allows the Central Government to declare any one of the selling agents as the sole selling agent if there are multiple agents in a particular area. Since there was no such declaration by the Central Government in this case, the firms could not be treated as sole selling agents. The court concluded that the agreements did not fall under the purview of section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Thus, the Tribunal was legally justified in its opinion that the firms were not sole selling agents, and the provisions of section 294(2) were not attracted. 2. Applicability of Section 314(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956: The second issue was whether the agreements were hit by section 314(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, which prohibits a director or their relatives from holding an office or place of profit in the company without the consent of the company accorded by a special resolution. The court noted that many of the partners in the selling agency firms were related to the directors of the respondent company. The court referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Synthetic & Chemicals Ltd., which held that the term "office or place of profit" includes selling and buying agents receiving commission and/or salary. Since the partners of the firms were related to the directors, their appointment as selling agents amounted to holding an office of profit. The court emphasized that a special resolution was required for such appointments, which was not obtained in this case. The court concluded that the agreements were violative of section 314(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, and thus, the provisions of section 314(1)(b) were applicable. The Tribunal was not legally correct in holding otherwise. Conclusion: The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, affirming that the firms were not sole selling agents and section 294(2) was not attracted. The second question was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, holding that the provisions of section 314(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, were applicable. The judgment was delivered without any order as to costs.
|
