2023 (5) TMI 395 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Liability of Independent Director who was retired before the date of offence - additional director regularized as a director in the Company - Post being held by the petitioner on the date of filing the report - petitioner is responsible/liable for the offence alleged or not.

What post was being held by the petitioner on the date of filing the report? - HELD THAT:- Form No. DIR – 11 clearly shows that on the date of resignation (30.12.2016) the petitioner was the “Director” of the Company. As seen from the portal, the petitioner was an “Additional Director” from 02.06.2014 to 30.09.2014. Inspite of being shown on the portal as “Additional Director /Director” the petitioner did not lodge any complaint with the Ministry about the alleged wrong information. There is no case that the petitioner had filed any objection to the said wrong information (as alleged) on the portal.

Whether the petitioner is responsible/liable for the offence alleged? - HELD THAT:- Many people claim that the ROC knows about this director, as the company had already filed DIR 12 at the time of his appointment as additional director. So, following regularization DIR 12 is not required to be filed, which is absolutely a wrong understanding. Since he is now a director, and not an additional director. Therefore, ROC must be informed by filing a new DIR 12 that the additional director has been regularized as a director in the Company - Moreover, additional directors are on equal footing, in terms of, of power, rights, duties, and responsibilities, as other directors are. Yet, tenure of additional director is up to the date of forthcoming AGM unlike directors which are duly appointed by shareholders in the general meeting. If the company wishes to continue with an additional director beyond the AGM, then it will have to go for his/her regularization.

In the present case the petitioner as seen from the documents was an Additional Director on the date the board report was filed. To counter the same evidence is required to be adduced during trial so also to decide as to whether the petitioner at the relevant time of filing the report was a Director, Additional Director or an Independent Director. The responsibility of an Additional Director being the same as that of a director (but difficult from an independent director) they remain responsible, as the statute provides for the same - Thus to quash the proceedings by exercising this Courts inherent powers would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and would also amount to serious miscarriage of justice.

Revision dismissed.