Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In her reply to this counter, Smt.Rambathri Hema, the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm, did not deny the aforestated facts.

Though Dr.P.Bhaskara Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner firm, and Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel representing Sri V.Kishore, learned counsel for the respondent company, raised several issues touching upon the merits of the case during the course of their arguments, this Court finds it unnecessary to deal with or adjudicate upon the same.

Once it is admitted that at the point of time the so-called contract was entered into by the petitioner firm and the respondent company, three out of the four partners of the petitioner firm were Directors in the respondent company and the fourth partner was a near relative of one of such Directors, Section 297 of the Act of 1956 would come into play. The import of Section 297(1) is that a company cannot enter into a contract for sale, purchase, supply of goods, materials or services with a firm in which a Director or his relative is a partner unless the consent of the Board of Directors of the company is sought prior thereto. The proviso to Section 297(1) further states that in the case of a company having a paid up share capital of not less than Rupees One Crore, no such contract shall be entered into except with the previous approval of the Central Government.

In the present case, the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the respondent company was Rs.15,00,00,000/- during the financial year 2010-11, as is evident from its audited balance sheet. Therefore, not only was the prior consent of the Board of Directors required but the previous approval of the Central Government was also mandatory. Admittedly, both these requirements were not complied with in so far as the subject contract is concerned.

Dr.P.Bhaskara Mohan, learned counsel, fairly conceded that the exclusionary clause in Section 297(2) of the Act of 1956 would have no application to the case on hand. Sub-section (3) of Section 297 of the Act of 1956 permits the execution of a contract without obtaining the consent of the Board, for goods, materials or services in excess of value of Rupees Five Thousand but posits that the consent of the Board should be obtained at a meeting within three months of the entering into the contract. Sub-section (4) of Section 297 of the Act of 1956 mandates that the consent of the Board required under the Section shall be by way of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Board and not otherwise. Such consent must therefore be given before the contract is entered into or within three months thereof. Sub-section (5) of Section 297 of the Act of 1956 provides that in the event consent is not accorded under the said Section anything done in pursuance of the contract would be voidable at the option of the Board of Directors of the company.

This being the legal environment, as three out of the four partners of the petitioner firm were the directors of the respondent company and the fourth and last partner was no other than the wife of one such Director, the very status of the contract becomes a preliminary issue. Admittedly, the consent of the Board of Directors of the respondent company was not obtained prior to the entering of the contract and even if Section 297(3) of the Act of 1956 is to be relied on, no consent was obtained from the Board within three months of the entering into the contract. Further, as the paid up share capital of the respondent company is far in excess of Rupees One Crore, the proviso to Section 297(1) of the Act of 1956 would be attracted and the previous approval of the Central Government becomes essential to validate the contract. This being the case, Section 297(5) of the Act of 1956 would not come to the rescue of this contract. Had it been a case of mere failure to obtain the consent of the Board of Directors, the petitioner firm may perhaps have relied upon Section 297(5) of the Act of 1956. But in the light of the application of the proviso to Section 297(1) of the Act of 1956 to the case on hand, the previous approval of the Central Government was mandatory and in the absence thereof, the contract cannot be said to be voidable at the option of the Board of Directors of the respondent company. It is rendered void for want of compliance with the proviso to Section 297(1) of the Act of 1956.

Dr.P.Bhaskara Mohan, learned counsel, contended that failure to obtain the previous approval of the Central Government would not render the contract void. He relied upon Section 629-A of the Act of 1956 and argued that as no specific penalty was provided for non-compliance with the proviso to Section 297(1), the company and every officer of the company in default of such compliance would only be punishable with fine. He contended that the status of the contract would not be adversely affected by the mere fact that previous approval of the Central Government was not obtained and such non-compliance would only entail penal consequences in terms of Section 629-A of the Act of 1956. However, perusal of Section 629-A demonstrates that in cases where such contravention is not penalized elsewhere in the Act of 1956, the contravention of any provision of the Act of 1956 or of any condition, limitation or restriction subject to which any approval, sanction, consent, confirmation, recognition, direction or exemption has been accorded, given or granted in relation to any matter, the company and every officer of the company who is in default thereof would be punishable with fine. The contravention, be it of any provision of the Act or of any condition, limitation or restriction, which formed the basis of any approval or sanction given or granted in relation to any matter, would constitute an independent offence for which provision is made under Section 629-A, in the event such contravention is not penalized elsewhere in the Act. This provision does not have the effect of wiping out the illegality of the contravening action. It is only supplementary in nature and visits penal consequences on the offender. The explicit language used in Section 297(1) proviso that no such contract as detailed in Section 297(1) 'shall' be entered into except with the previous approval of the Central Government, in the event the paid-up share capital of the company is not less than Rupees One Crore, puts it beyond doubt that a contract executed in violation thereof has no sanctity in the eye of law. This Court is not persuaded to read down the import of the word 'shall' used in Section 297(1) proviso. In consequence, compliance therewith is mandatory.