Dear friends,
A very interesting discussion has started on this thread. This gives impression that the concept of WTD is not applicable in case of private company. This however may not be the fact. Such impression might be based on wrong interpretation of Section 269 dealing with appointment of MD/WTD which is not applicable to private company. As per Section 269 WTD includes a director in the whole time employment of the company. It may be noted that Section 269 does not prohibit voluntary appointment of MD/WTD by private companies. Following points need consideration:
-
Section 267 of the Act reads as under:
“Certain persons not to be appointed managing directors.
267. No company shall, after the commencement of this Act, appoint or employ, or continue the appointment or employment of, any person as its managing or whole-time director who—
(a) is an undischarged insolvent, or has at any time been adjudged an insolvent;
(b) suspends, or has at any time suspended, payment to his creditors, or makes, or has at any time made, a composition with them; or
(c) is, or has at any time been, convicted by a Court of an offence involving moral turpitude.”
This Section is applicable to both private and public companies. It shows that if a private company appoints a person as MD/WTD on voluntary basis, it has to follow applicable provisions in this regard.
-
Appointment of a director as a WTD constitutes a ‘change’ within the meaning of Section 303(2) and a return in Form 32 needs to be filed.
-
We all know that a WTD cannot draw remuneration from more than one company at the same time. This is true for private company also. Form 32 also shows ‘Director’ and ‘WTD’ as different positions. The idea might be that any one could check whether or not applicable provisions for appointment of WTD have been followed.
-
Suppose a private company having paid up capital of Rs.10 crores is paying monthly salary to a director and filed Form 32 as WTD. The company does not have any MD. Subsequently the company is converted into a public company. After conversion, data of MCA will show that the company has complied with Section 269(1) since the designation of the director is WTD. [In case the designation is shown as ‘Director’ only, the company will be in default of Sec.269(1).] Further, as clarified by the Department vide its letter No. 8/11/43A/61-PR, dated 25-1‑1961, restrictive provisions of Sections 198, 255, 309, 310 and 311 will apply from the date of conversion.
-
MD/WTD drawing remuneration from the company should not be paid sitting fee for attending Board meetings.
-
Subject to the provisions in the Articles, a director may resign by giving notice to the company. However, resignation of WTD should be accepted by the Board.
-
In case of an offence by a company which does not have MD/WTD, all directors may be deemed to be officers in default u/s 5.
Learned members may further deliberate on this issue.