Skip to content


A.R. Sudarsanam Vs. Madras Purasawalkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCompany Application No. 33 of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1986]60CompCas282(Mad)
ActsCompanies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 9
AppellantA.R. Sudarsanam
RespondentMadras Purasawalkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi Ltd.
Excerpt:
- .....instead of rs. 15,000 per annum for the five year's term up to june 11, 1985. according to the learned counsel for the applicant, as long as the remuneration has already been fixed for the period ending june 11, 1980, (1985 ?) such remuneration cannot be revised during the said period. in support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to section 309(7). according to the said provision, the special resolution referred to in sub-section (4) shall not remain in force for a period of more than five years but may be renewed for a further period of not more than five years at a time. i do not find anything in the provision prohibiting revision of remuneration during the period of entitlement according to the earlier resolution. on the other hand, section 310 visualizes the case of.....
Judgment:

Shanmukham, J.

1. This application purported to be one under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, is taken out by a member of the respondent company. According to the applicant, the remuneration of the director-secretary was fixed at Rs. 15,000 for the period from June 12, 1980, to June 11, 1985. Nevertheless Special Resolution No. II has been passed in the general body meeting held on December 30, 1982, and the said resolution is to the effect that the remuneration of the secretary-director is subject to a minimum of Rs. 12,500 and maximum of Rs. 30,000 instead of Rs. 15,000 per annum for the five year's term up to June 11, 1985. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, as long as the remuneration has already been fixed for the period ending June 11, 1980, (1985 ?) such remuneration cannot be revised during the said period. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to section 309(7). According to the said provision, the special resolution referred to in sub-section (4) shall not remain in force for a period of more than five years but may be renewed for a further period of not more than five years at a time. I do not find anything in the provision prohibiting revision of remuneration during the period of entitlement according to the earlier resolution. On the other hand, section 310 visualizes the case of revision including enhancement. However, the mandate in section 310 is that any such enhancement should have the approval of the Central Government. In the instant case, the Central Government has accorded its sanction for the enhancement up to a minimum of Rs. 20,000 in its first order dated November 3, 1983, since amended to Rs. 25,000 in its second order dated December 16, 1983. Thus, the resolution is in conformity with section 310 in which event the applicant can have no real grievance. Accordingly, this application is dismissed but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //