Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Thursday, Feb 14, 2002

News
Features
Stocks
Port Info
Archives

Group Sites

Corporate - Corporate Governance
Money & Banking - Regulatory Bodies & Rulings


FIs asked to submit immunity proposal

Richa Mishra

NEW DELHI, Feb. 13

THE Department of Company Affairs has asked the financial institutions (FIs) to submit a proposal, which will seek to grant immunity from prosecution to their nominees on the boards of companies, which default on deposits, debt payment and dividend.

The FIs had sought an exemption for their nominees from the provisions of Section 274 of the Companies Act. Section 274(1)(g) provides that a person shall not be capable of being appointed as a director of a company if such a person is already a director of a public company which has not filed annual accounts and returns for a continuous period of three financial years and has failed to repay its deposits or interest thereon or, redeem its debentures on due dates or pay dividend and such failures continues for one year or more.

"The department is considering relaxation of the norms for the institution nominees," sources said. "Something on the lines of the Sick Industrial (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which provides for immunity against the FIs nominees can be incorporated for the defaulting companies under the Companies Act," the sources said.

According to bankers, though the nominee directors possess some immunity from prosecution, such exemption is granted under the present legal provisions only if they act in good faith and that too in the interests of the company on whose boards they are sitting.

Apart from the institutions, trade and industry have also been calling the provision "quite harsh". "Such disqualification would be unfair in respect of non-executive director of such public company who is not in-charge of day-to-day management of the company," industry sources said.

In fact, one fails to appreciate the rational of such a disqualification provision at all, the industry is quick to add. "It needs to be accepted that a director relies and acts on the information given to him by the company and per se there may not be any default on his part. However, if default is ultimately found, the director is punished and not the company, which has erred in providing him with the information goes away without punishment," sources said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
Shaw Wallace set to seal tie-ups abroad


Tata Salt, HLL's Annapurna cross swords over ad
Khaitans to acquire Magor stake in group cos
RBI approves ADR/GDR re-issue
Govt eases norms for ADRs, GDRs
VSNL enters Tata family
BSNL almost jammed Tata lines
Of saabs, wedlock and TV soaps
Sika AG buying out Indian partner's stake
Raymond acquires HGI Files
FIs asked to submit immunity proposal
Divi's Lab plans bulk unit in Vizag
Implement wage revision, say Paradeep staff
Air India to go it alone in Gulf
TI implements Oracle 11i
Binny makes final payments on VRS; to take up CFS
Nalco Jan output exceeds target
Cadila sulfolane for Taiwan co
New range of products launched by ebm-Nadi


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |

Copyright 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line