Effect of non‑filing ‑ Whether penalty under section 629A would be attracted if director continues to act as such without filing his consent - Companies Law - No. 5/6/68‑CL-V,

Letter : No. 5/6/68 ‑ CL-V, dated 21-10 ‑ 1970 (in modification of earlier letter of even number, dated 21 ‑ 2 ‑ 1970). Subject:- Effect of non ‑ filing ‑ Whether penalty under section 629A would be attracted if director continues to act as such without filing his consent The Department has now been advised that the prohibition contained under section 264(2) operates only in respect of a person acting as director without his consent being filed within the specified period. This prohibition, however, does not extend to his appointment as such as in the cases falling under section 261, nor does it serve as disqualification as in the cases falling under sections 266 and 274, nor does the office of director become automatically vacant as in cases falling under section 283. The consequence of a director continuing to act as such without filing his consent within the period specified in section 264(2) would be that the penalty under section 629A would be attracted in the matter. Such consent may, however, be filed after the expiry of the said period on payment of additional fee contemplated by section 611(2). It is further, open to the Central Government under section 637B to condone the delay in filing the consent within the period specified in section 264(2) and thereby remove the prohibition contained in the latter‑mentioned section of the Act.