This article is written by Mr.Archak Das, BBALLB student studying in Adamas university, Kolkata. The author is a 2nd year law student
INTRODUCTION
The appointment of directors in a company is a crucial process, as they are responsible for the management and direction of the company. If there are defects in the appointment process, it can lead to legal and operational problems for the company. The defects in appointment of directors of a company can occur due to various reasons, some of which are:
- Failure to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act: The Companies Act, 2013 (or the relevant legislation in your country) sets out the eligibility criteria, qualifications, disqualifications, and procedural requirements for the appointment of directors of a company. Failure to comply with these legal requirements can result in the appointment being defective.
- Lack of proper documentation: The appointment of directors must be recorded and documented in the minutes of the board meeting or in written resolutions. If the documentation is not done properly, it may lead to defects in the appointment.
- Incomplete disclosure: It is essential that all the relevant information about the director, such as their background, experience, and other relevant details, is disclosed to the company. Failure to disclose complete information may result in defects in the appointment.
- Conflict of interest: If a director has a conflict of interest, such as being a relative of a key shareholder or a supplier to the company, it can lead to defects in the appointment.
- Non-compliance with the company’s articles of association: The articles of association of a company may have specific provisions regarding the appointment of directors. Failure to comply with these provisions can result in defects in the appointment.
These are some of the common defects in appointment of directors of a company. It is essential to ensure that the appointment process is carried out in compliance with all legal requirements and internal procedures to avoid such defects.
Defects in appointment of directors of companies due to disqualifications
The appointment of directors of a company can be affected by disqualifications, which can make the appointment invalid. Some of the common disqualifications that can lead to defects in the appointment of directors are as follows:
- Age: The Companies Act, 2013, requires that a director must be at least 18 years of age. If a person below the age of 18 is appointed as a director, the appointment will be invalid.
- Insolvency: A person who is declared insolvent or bankrupt is disqualified from being appointed as a director of a company.
- Conviction: A person who has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude or any economic offence is disqualified from being appointed as a director of a company.
- Non-compliance: A person who has been a director of a company that has not filed its financial statements or annual returns for three consecutive years is disqualified from being designated as a director of another corporation.
- Shareholding: A person who is a shareholder in a company and has not paid any calls or other sums due on their shares for six months is disqualified from being appointed as a director of any other company.
- Directorship: A person who is a director of more than 20 companies at the same time is disqualified from being appointed as a director of any other company.
In conclusion, disqualifications can lead to defects in the appointment of directors of a company. It is important to ensure that the appointed directors are not disqualified and meet the eligibility criteria as set out in the Companies Act, 2013, and the Articles of Association. This will help to ensure the smooth functioning of the company and avoid legal and operational problems.
Under certain circumstances, defects in the appointment of a director may not necessarily invalidate the actions taken by the board or the company. The Companies Act, 2013, provides for certain provisions that may protect the actions of the company and the board even if there are defects in the appointment of a director. These provisions are as follows:
- Ratification: If the appointment of a director is defective, the board or the company may choose to ratify the appointment. Ratification means that the board or the company acknowledges and confirms the appointment after the defect has been discovered. Once the appointment is ratified, the actions taken by the board or the director are deemed to be valid.
- Deemed appointment: Under Section 176 of the Companies Act, 2013, if a person has been appointed as a director of a company but is subsequently found to be disqualified, their appointment is deemed to be valid until the date of their disqualification. Therefore, any actions taken by the board or the director during this period are deemed to be valid.
- Good faith: If the board or the company has acted in good faith and believed that the appointment was valid, the actions taken by the director may not be invalidated. Good faith means that the board or the company acted honestly and with a genuine belief that the appointment was valid.
In conclusion, defects in the appointment of a director may not necessarily invalidate the actions taken by the board or the company. However, it is important to ensure that the appointment of a director is made in compliance with the Companies Act, 2013, and the Articles of Association to avoid any potential legal or operational problems.
Defective appointment of directors under The Companies Act
According to section 176 of the companies act, defects in appointment of directors will not invalidate actions taken. Section 176 of the Companies Act provides that any act done by a director, despite any defect that may have existed in his appointment or qualification shall be deemed to be valid. This means that if a person is appointed as a director of a company, but there was some defect in his appointment or qualification, any actions taken by him as a director will not be invalidated merely because of the defect. For example, if a person is appointed as a director without having obtained the necessary consent from the Registrar of Companies, his appointment may be defective. However, if he performs his duties as a director, any actions he takes in that capacity will still be valid.
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that third parties dealing with a company can rely on the actions of its directors, even if there are defects in their appointment or qualification. It is intended to protect innocent parties who may be adversely affected if the actions of directors were invalidated due to such defects. However, it should be noted that this provision does not condone the appointment of persons who are not eligible to be directors. It merely provides that defects in appointment or qualification will not affect the validity of actions taken by directors in good faith.
CONCLUSION
The appointment of a director may be considered defective if it is not made in accordance with the legal requirements or the company’s articles of association. However, this defect in appointment does not necessarily invalidate the director’s acts. The reason for this is that the director’s authority to act on behalf of the company is not solely derived from their appointment. The director’s authority to act also arises from the company’s articles of association and the relevant provisions of the law. Therefore, even if the appointment of a director is defective, their actions may still be valid if they are authorized by the company’s articles of association or the law. Moreover, the principle of ostensible authority may also come into play. This principle holds that if a third party reasonably believes that a person has authority to act on behalf of a company, and the company does not take steps to correct that belief, then the company may be bound by the actions of that person. This means that if a defective director has acted in a way that a third party reasonably believed was within their authority, the company may be bound by those actions.
References