Indian Bare Acts

Search Alphabatically :

The Companies Act, 1956

Title : The Companies Act, 1956

Year : 1956

** Section 280 repealed  by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1965 (31 of 1965), section 36 w.e.f. 15th October, 1965.

** Section 281 repealed  by section 37, ibid, with  w.e.f. 15th October, 1965.

** Section 282 repealed  by section 38, ibid, with  w.e.f. 15th October, 1965.

Sec283    -    Vacation of office by directors.

    (1) The office of a director shall become vacant if :

      (a) he fails to obtain within the time specified in sub-section (1) of section 270, or at any time thereafter ceases to hold, the share qualification, if any, required of him by the articles of the company;

      (b) he is found to be of unsound mind by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

      (c) he applies to be adjudicated an insolvent;

      (d) he is adjudged an insolvent;

      (e) he is convicted by a Court of any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than six months;

      (f) he fails to pay any call in respect of shares of the company held by him, whether alone or jointly with others, within six months from the last date fixed for the payment of the call unless the Central Government has, by notification in the Official Gazette, removed the disqualification incurred by such failure;

      (g) he absents himself from three consecutive meetings of the Board of directors, or from all meetings of the Board for a continuous period of three months, whichever is longer, without obtaining leave of absence from the Board;

      (h) he (whether by himself or by any person for his benefit or on his account), or any firm in which he is a partner or any private company of which he is a director, accepts a loan, or any guarantee or security for a loan, from the company in contravention of section 295;

      (i) he acts in contravention of section 299;

      (j) he becomes disqualified by an order of Court under section 203;

      (k) he is removed in pursuance of section 284; or

      (l) having been appointed a director by virtue of his holding any office or other employment in the company he ceases to hold such office or other employment in the company

    (2) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (d), (e) and (j) of sub-section (1), the disqualification referred to in those clauses shall not take effect :

      (a) for thirty days from the date of the adjudication, sentence or order;

      (b) where any appeal or petition is preferred within the thirty days aforesaid against the adjudication, sentence or conviction resulting in the sentence, or order until the expiry of seven days from the date on which such appeal or petition is disposed of; or

      (c) where within the seven days aforesaid, any further appeal or petition is preferred in respect of the adjudication, sentence, conviction, or order, and the appeal or petition, if allowed, would result in the removal of the disqualification, until such further appeal or petition is disposed of.

    (2A) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), if a person functions as a director when he knows that the office of director held by him has become vacant on account of any of the disqualifications, specified in the several clauses of sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for each day on which he so functions as a director.

    (3) A private company which is not a subsidiary of a public company may, by its articles, provide, that the office of director shall be vacated on any grounds in addition to those specified in sub-section (1).


Last updated on May, 2015

Find a Lawyer

Legal Hall of Fame

The current Legal Luminaries of India, the credible names in the legal circle along with those who would be the leading stars of the next decade. These are some of the reliable names in field of law. Nominate the Legal Stars of tomorrow

More

Recent Judgment


Sudha Mishra vs. Surya Chandra Mishra( R.F.A 299 of 2014

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sudha Mishra vs. Surya Chandra Mishra (R.F.A 299 of 2014)has ruled that a woman has a right over the property of her husband but she cannot claim a right to live in the house of her parents-in-law

More

Bare Acts

Helpline Law provides a user friendly compendium of Indian Law & Bare Acts. Get a complete list & detail of Indian Bare Acts, with amendments and repeals. It comes with easy-to-use features like Search by bare acts & by year. You can even email the information to yourself!

More

Have a Legal Matter ?
Need a Lawyer?

Have a Legal Matter ?

Need a Lawyer?

Male
Female