Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 233 - AT - Companies LawVacation of office by Directors - Held that:- The appellant did not resign on 21.09.2011 and even if it was so, he never pursued it with the Registrar of Companies or with the company for filing Form 32 with the ROC. On the contrary, after one-and-a half years he furnished fresh resignation letters on 26.02.2013 and thereafter again on 01.04.2013.Even in the subsequent resignation letters the appellant neither raised any grievance with the company nor mentioned about his resignation tendered on September 21, 2011. We, therefore, find that the appellant remained as the Director of the Company from 20.12.2010 to 01.04.2013. Appellant was never called upon to attend any Board meetings of the company - A simple perusal of the provision shows that it applies only to a director who in spite of notice absents himself from three consecutive meetings of the Board of Directors or absents himself from all the meetings of the Board for a continuous period of three months. In the present case, it is the case of the appellant that notice of Board meeting was never served on him. In such a case, question of the appellant remaining absent from the Board meetings does not arise and consequently the question of applying Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 to the case of the appellant also does not arise. Appeal stands dismissed. Liability of the appellant under the impugned order is restricted to the period from 20.12.2010 to 01.04.2013 with interest jointly and severally with the company and other directors of the company.
|