Skip to main content

A director cannot withdraw his resignation without the consent of the company if he has sent resignation notice to the company though not accepted by the company yet



Visit our website: www.onlinelawsolutions.com

Subscribe our updates on tax/law: Click Here


The present petition is filed under section 614 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying this Bench to direct the respondents to file Form 32 at the office of the ROC intimating the cessation of the petitioner from the directorship w.e.f 25.04.2012.

The PCS appeared for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the founder promoter and one of the first directors of the First Respondent. He had resigned his directorship and had communicated the same to the Respondents vide his email dated 25.04.2012.

The petitioner had also sent the hard copy of the resignation letter by registered post with acknowledgement. The same was received by the Respondent No.2 on 30.04.2012. The petitioner was subject to torture by other Directors and Respondents No.2 to 4. have been making several baseless and untrue allegations. Vide his email dated 25.04.2012, when the petitioner had categorically communicated his resignation and had requested the Board of Directors to take the same on record with immediate effect, the Respondents refused to do the same. On 26.04.2012, Respondent No.3 had sent an email to the petitioner to state that the petitioner cannot resign until all the liabilities incurred by the Company are cleared.

Subsequently. the respondents had in what was styled as a general meeting allegedly held on 20.07.2012, made various baseless allegations against the petitioner.


Ruling:

The petitioner resigned from the post of director vide his letter dated 25.04.2012 addressed to the Board of directors stating that he would like to resign from the directorship of the Board of directors of the R I Company and requested the Board to place the resignation letter at the Board meeting so that his resignation will take immediate effect. The respondents received the resignation letter of the petitioner and the 35 respondent vide his letter dated 26.04.2012 addressed to the petitioner stated that the petitioner cannot resign until all liabilities incurred by the RI Company at the behest of the petitioner during the periods from October 2010 to April 2012 are cleared. From the letter it is clear that there is no other reason not to relieve the petitioner from his position as director until he clears all the liabilities. The said reason cannot be a ground to withhold in filing Form 32 with the concerned ROC showing cessation of petitioner as director due to resignation. On the legal aspect it is seen that there is no provision in the Companies Act, 1956 or in the Regulations contained in Table A regarding the acceptance of resignation of a director by the company. Even in the articles of the company there is no requirement of acceptance of resignation by the company. Even section 283 of the Companies Act, which prescribes vacation of office by the directors for the reasons as mentioned therein do not contain any provision regarding acceptance of resignation. Therefore it is clear that a director may at any time resign from his office. It is reiterated that where there is no provision making acceptance of resignation necessary, a director vacates office on giving notice of his resignation. He cannot withdraw his resignation without the consent of the company. Further various Hon'ble High Courts have held that the resignation of director takes effect from the date of the resignation letter. It is also held by the Honble High Courts that any form of resignation. whether oral or written is sufficient provided the intention to resign is clear. In the absence of any indication or otherwise, a resignation takes effect immediately. The resignation however will not relieve a person from any liability which he may have incurred while in office. In the present case the petitioner tendered his resignation to the Board of directors in writing vide his letter dated 25.04.2012 therefore the intention is explicit and clear and the resignation takes effect from 25.04.2012. The only objection of the company in taking note of the resignation of the petitioner and filing Form 32 with the concerned Registrar is that the company incurred certain liabilities at the behest of the petitioner during October 2010 and April 2012. As stated supra the resignation will not however relieve the petitioner from any liability if any, which he may have incurred while in office as alleged by the respondents. I am of the view that the company and its officers made default by not filing Form 32 intimating the resignation of the petitioner from the post of director despite receipt of 14 days' notice requiring it to do so. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in exercise of powers conferred under section 614 of the Companies Act, 1956,

CLB hereby direct the company to file Form 32 with the concerned Registrar showing cessation of the petitioner from the post of director w.e.f. 25.04.2012 within a period of 15 days from receipt of copy of this order.

Accordingly. the CP No.3./2012 is ordered and disposed of The Bench Officer of this Bench is directed to send copy of this order to the Registrar of Companies. Bangalore. Karnataka.  



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Internal Financial Controls over Financial Reporting

Visit our website:  www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law:  Click Here CS Urja Mahesh Karia Audit of ‘Internal   Financial controls   (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IFC’) over Financial Reporting’ is a reasonably advanced reporting concept for India. In India though there were no such requirements earlier, however, similar reporting requirements existed globally such as section 404 of Sarbanes Oxley Act, 2002 of USA. Initially when majority of the Sections of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) were notified along with Section 143(3)(i), there was lot of ambiguity not only on part of the company but also on the part of the auditors regarding the actual reporting. Later on, MCA has notified the   Companies (Audit & Auditors) Amendment Rules, 2014   and introduced new Rule 10A. Further, ICAI has also issued Guidance Notes on 14 th   September 2015 and both of these steps...

Transfer of shareholding on basis of disputed MOU was clear act of oppression by respondent

Visit our website:  www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law:   Click Here   Where respondent group on basis of a disputed MOU with appellant group had held board meeting, issued duplicate shares and transferred shareholding of appellant group in its favour at valuation which was not acceptable to appellant group, action of respondent group was a clear calculated act of grossest oppression INTRODUCTION 3. The dispute pertains to the control and management of M/s. SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SAF Yeast), a Private Limited Company, having registered office at 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Mumbai. SAF Yeast has one plant in Chiplun, Maharashtra and another at Sandhila, Uttar Pradesh. SAF Yeast is a joint venture company. The joint venture is between Nafan B.V. and Mr.Arunachalam Muthu and M/s.Helios Food Additives Pvt. Ltd. SAF Yeast carries on business of manufacture of yeast and is a dealer and expor...

Son Attaining majority disentitles him from receiving maintenance from his father: Sikkim HC

Visit our website:  www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law:   Click Here Thus, if a child whether legitimate or illegitimate has attained majority as per the aforesaid Act of 1875 and is not suffering by any physical or mental abnormality or injury, thereby unable to maintain itself, would not be entitled to receive maintenance u/S. 125, the Court said. High Court of Sikkim has set aside an order by Family court which had enhanced maintenance to ‘son’ who had attained majority. On the Revision petition filed by ‘Father’, Chief Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha, held that provisions of Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure are always subject to the provisions of Section 125 and as the major son, ceases to be entitled to receive maintenance under section 125, he cannot seek an order of enhancement under section 127. Facts and contentions In this case, The Family Court, had enhanced the aforesaid amount of monthly maintenance from Rs....