Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Management
Subject – Company Law II
Semester VI
Unit 4 to 8
Curated by – Prof. Shreya Madali
Board of a Company –
- A board of directors (BoD) is the governing body of a company, whose members
are elected by shareholders (in the case of public companies) to set strategy,
oversee management, and protect the interests of shareholders and
stakeholders.
- The board of directors of a public company is elected by shareholders.
- The board makes key decisions on issues such as mergers and dividends, hires
senior managers, and sets their pay.
- Board of directors candidates can be nominated by the company's nominations
committee or by outsiders seeking change.
- Boards may include the CEO and sometimes also the chief financial officer, as
well as nonexecutive and independent directors. It’s the job of the lead singer—
or CEO—to make sure the strategy is executed.
- In today’s rapidly changing business and societal landscapes, effective board
governance is more important than ever.
- In the past, boards mainly oversaw CEO succession and financial strategy, providing
support and approval for strategy proposed by management. But the environment
has changed.
- Today, the board’s involvement extends well beyond that: the modern board of
directors provides more proactive direction and oversight on strategy, risk and
opportunity management, sustainability, talent management, leadership
succession, organizational culture, and even brand management and marketing.
For publicly traded companies, boards typically comprise executive, nonexecutive,
and independent directors elected by shareholders. This is known as a one-tier
board structure.
Some organizations maintain a two-tier board structure with clear separation
between the management board and supervisory board. In this structure, overall
board responsibilities are generally very similar to any other board. One of the
differences, though, is that the management and supervisory boards in two-tiered
structures may not have access to the same information.
Meetings –
- The word “meeting” is not defined anywhere in the Companies Act. Ordinarily, a
company may be defined as gathering, assembling or coming together of two or
more persons (by previous notice or by mutual arrangement) for discussion and
transaction of some lawful business.
- A company meeting may be defined as a concurrence or coming together of at
least a quorum of members in order to transact either ordinary or special
business of the company
- Meeting is the congregation of several persons in a particular place for the
purpose of discussing some important matters and expressing their opinion on
the questions raised.
Definitions of Meetings –
Sharp vs. Dawes (1971) - meeting is defined as “An assembly of people for a
lawful purpose” or “the coming together of at least two persons for any lawful
purpose.”
P.K. Ghosh - “Any gathering, assembly or coming together of two or more persons
for the transaction of some lawful business of common concern is called meeting.”
Inspection of Proxy Form - Section 105(8) - During the period beginning 21-24
hours before the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting and ending
with the conclusion of the meeting, ROC/such other officers shall inspect the
proxies forms filed, at any time during the business hours of the company,
provided not less than three days’ notice in writing of the intention so to inspect
is given to the company.
- Clause 105 - This clause corresponds to section 176 of the Companies Act, 1956
and seeks to provide that a member who is entitled to attend and vote can
appoint another person as a proxy to attend and vote at the meeting on his
behalf.
- However, proxy shall not have the right to speak at a meeting
- The term “proxy” has been used to denote both the instrument and the person
appointed through the instrument. The term is not defined in the Act.
- However, ”Proxy” means an instrument in writing signed by a Member,
authorising another person, whether a Member or not, to attend and vote on
his behalf at a Meeting and also where the context so requires, the person so
appointed by a Member.
- Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “proxy” as
“1. One who is authorized to act as a substitute for another; esp., in corporate law,
a person who is authorized to vote another’s stock shares.
2. The grant of authority by which a person is so authorized.
Deposit of proxy instrument
- proxies shall be deposited with the company either in person or through post.
- The proxies are to be deposited not later than 48 hours before the
commencement of the meeting in relation to which they are deposited.
- A proxy shall be accepted on a holiday if the last date by which it could be
accepted is a holiday.
- Any provision in the articles of a company which specifies or requires a longer
period for deposit of proxy than 48 hours before a meeting of the company shall
have effect as if a period of forty-eight hours had been specified in or required
for such deposit. Hence, the provisions of the Act will override the provisions
of the articles.
Rights of the proxy:
1. Attending meeting
2. Voting on poll.
Disabilities of proxy:
- A proxy has no right to speak at the meeting.
- A proxy cannot be a chairman in the meeting.
- He will not be counted in quorum.
- He cannot vote by show of hands
Rupak Gupta v. U.P Hotels (2016)
Facts of the Case
- In the present case, Petitioner is one of the Joint Managing Director of M/s U.P.
Hotels Limited (herein after referred to as Company).
- The other Joint Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as ‘Defendant’) called
the board meeting on June 04, 2016 for the appointment of Company Secretary
and Independent Director.
- Petitioner was travelling overseas from June 01, 2016 to June 14, 2016 and
requested the Defendant to provide the facility of video conferencing for the board
meeting dated June 04, 2016.
- Defendant assured the same and the petitioner left for overseas as per their
schedule trip. On the date of board meeting, Defendant denied permission for
participation in Board meeting through video-conferencing facility on the ground
that Rule 3(3) (e) of Companies (Meeting of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014
mandates intimation of participation in the board meeting through electronic mode
at the beginning of the calendar year which was not complied with by the
- Provisions of Law Section 173(2) of Companies Act, 2013 which deals with mode of participation
by the directors at the board meeting reads as follows:
- (2) The participation of directors in a meeting of the Board may be either in person or through
video conferencing or other audio visual means, as may be prescribed, which are capable of
recording and recognizing the participation of the directors and of recording and storing the
proceedings of such meetings along with date and time.
- Further, Rule 3 (3) of Companies (Meeting of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014 provides certain
conditions w.r.t. participation through electronic mode and reads as follows:
- (b)The notice of the meeting shall inform the directors regarding the option available to them to
participate through video conferencing mode or other audio visual means, and shall provide all
the necessary information to enable the directors to participate through video conferencing mode
or other audio visual means.
- (c)A director intending to participate through video conferencing or audio visual means shall
communicate his intention to the Chairperson or the company secretary of the company.
- (d)If the director intends to participate through video conferencing or other audio visual means,
he shall give prior intimation to that effect sufficiently in advance so that company is able to make
suitable arrangements in this behalf.
- (e) The director, who desire, to participate may intimate his intention of participation through the
electronic mode at the beginning of the calendar year and such declaration shall be valid for one
Judgment of NCLT
- The NCLT stayed the operation of the board resolution which was passed for the appointment of
Company Secretary and Independent Director.
- The Judge held that Rule 3(3)(e) of Companies (Meeting of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014 was
in existence even before the Petitioner had left for overseas and if the participation through video
conferencing was in contravention of said rules, than the assurance of providing facility of video
conferencing should not have been given by the Defendant.
- The Judge quoted that If anybody acts on the assurance given by the other side, the other side
cannot later back out from the assurance given by it. If at all any person backed out from the
assurance given, and if the assured proceeded on that assurance, then, such statement is hit by the
doctrine of estoppel.
- It is the duty of the director convening the Board meeting to inform the other directors about the
option available to them to participate in the meeting through video conferencing mode.
- Further, Sub Rule 3(3) (e) of Companies (Meeting of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014 does not
intend to say that if an intimation to participate in a meeting through electronic mode is not given
at the beginning of the year, the directors are not entitled to participate in any meeting through
electronic mode.
- The said sub-rule has to be read wholly and not in pieces, therefore there is no merit in the
Defendant’s contention that video conferencing was not provided since no intimation was given at