December 10, 2021

Liabilites on Director of Private Limited company in India

A company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, directors and management. However, being an artificial person, a company is run by its directors appointed by shareholders and they are responsible for the day to day business operations.

In recent times, businesses have seen funding from overseas entities which is strengthening the Indian corporate sector and our trade in the global market. On the other side, scams and frauds by siphoning of funds, accounting irregularities, non-compliances and corruption have also become a part of corporate functioning leading to a grey area needing immediate attention.

The issue of scam and fraud have been taken seriously by the Government as various actions of arrests have been taken against promoters and key persons in some cases. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office has also been established in the Companies Act, 2013 to keep a watch over white-collar crimes.

The high risk of internal fraud raises concerns about the liability of directors on the board of companies. In this article, we are explaining the key areas of liabilities for you as a director or a new person joining the board of a company as a director and what precautionary measures can be taken beforehand.

1. Types of liabilities

Once a company is registered, its distinct status, assets and liabilities continue till it is deregistered by the Registrar of companies. In the lifetime of a company, its directors are exposed to the following types of potential liabilities:

Liabilities under Companies Act, 2013

Liabilities under Income Tax Act, 1961

Liabilities under Labour laws

Liabilities under Negotiable Instrument Act,1881

Liabilities under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

2. Liabilities under Companies Act, 2013

The Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) defines a director to mean ‘a director appointed to the Board of a company. The Act also contains the concept of an ‘officer who is in default’ for the purposes of imposing liability on such a person in respect of any contravention of the provisions of the Act by the company.

The ambit of ‘officer who is in default’ is wide and includes, inter alia, every whole-time director, director(s) who has given consent for becoming a key person in absence of any key managerial personnel, every director who is participating in proceedings relating to a contravention of provisions of the Act and is aware of such contravention. Hence, independent directors and non-executive directors also get covered within the meaning of officer in default.

There are several provisions in the Act where a director is held liable for penalties and imprisonment. Misleading statements in the prospectus, failure in repaying deposit money to depositors, indulging in any fraud in a company or with creditors, non-intimating stock exchanges about public offers, non-maintenance of proper books of accounts prior to winding up are few defaults inviting personal liability of directors.

It is important for independent directors and non-executive directors to know that their liability will arise only in cases where acts of omission or commission by a company had occurred with their knowledge attributable through board processes with their consent or where they did not act diligently and there is sufficient evidence to prove the same.

3. Liabilities under Income Tax Act, 1961

The Income Tax Act, 1961 imposes vicarious liability upon the directors in respect of the tax arrears of the companies. The liability is linked to the income of the previous year which has been assessed to tax. Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 affixes joint and several liabilities on every director of a private company for recovery of tax dues which could not be recovered from the company unless the director proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company. This section applies to a person who is or has been a director in such a company for recovering tax dues.

4. Liabilities under Labour Laws

An offence committed by a company under labour laws viz. Factories Act, 1948, Employees Provident Fund, 1952, etc. makes the person who has control over affairs of the company liable for penal consequences. Therefore, directors automatically come into picture for potential liabilities and only those directors who are in charge of the overall affairs of the company are held liable for penalties and imprisonment.

5. Liabilities under Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881

An offence committed by a company relating to dishonouring of cheques is regulated by section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. According to that section, vicarious liability is imposed on directors for dishonouring cheques drawn by a company. The liability is extended to the directors who are responsible for day to day affairs of the company and any director who is a signatory of the cheque is also held liable. However, a director will not be held liable for dishonour of cheque by the company if an offence occurred without his knowledge and he/she exercised due diligence in order to avoid the offence.

6. Liabilities under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Once the insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC 2016) starts, the powers of the board of directors are suspended, and an external professional is appointed to run the affairs of the company. IBC 2016 extends the liability on the directors of the corporate debtor (a company under IBC process) as and when a transaction involving them is brought under question.

The liability on directors is imposed to the extent of reversing the transaction or making a reasonable contribution to the assets of the company under IBC process to ensure the safeguarding of the creditor’s interest. However, a director is not liable if reasonable due diligence is undertaken and there was no fraudulent intention.

7. Precautions to be taken by directors

(i) Performance of duties

The directors of a company are integral to the everyday functioning of the company. Therefore, they are held liable for losses connected to culpable acts or negligence. To avoid personal liabilities, directors should perform their duties by acting diligently and prudently. Further, statutorily, directors should:

Act in accordance with the articles of association of the company.

Act in good faith to promote the objectives of the company.

Perform duty of care, skill and diligence and exercise independent judgment.

Act in the best interests of the company, its employees, the shareholders, and the community and for the protection of the environment.

Further, independent directors being external directors should possess more experience and knowledge to gather all ongoing functionalities of the company. Also, additional duties for independent directors are codified in Schedule IV of the Companies Act.

(ii) Insurance

Directors’ and officers’ liability insurance is insurance that protects directors, officers and company itself for losses and other costs in case suits are filed against them for alleged wrongful acts. The growing number and intensity of risks for companies highlight the need for them to ensure that they have robust insurance coverage in place. And with directors’ and officers’ personal assets potentially at stake, ensuring sufficient coverage is especially important. Therefore, directors of companies can recommend taking directors and officers insurance to protect their interests.

(iii) Indemnification

In general, indemnification means covering expenses incurred by another person. Now, directors can ask for an indemnification policy against any liabilities he/she incur in case of alleged negligence, breach of duty, etc. It is important to note that a director cannot be indemnified against liability in civil or criminal proceedings for which he or she is found guilty.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and VJM & Associates LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

Establishment of Non-SEZ IT/ITES business in IT/ITES Special Economic Zones| Insertion of Rule 11B to SEZ Rules

Streamlining Company Registration in India: A Digital Transformation

How to Start a Startup Company in India

MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form

Others

MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form

As per Section 29(1A) of Companies Act read with Rule 9A of The Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, every unlisted public company shall ensure that before issuance of any securities entire holding of securities of its promoters, directors, key managerial personnel has been dematerialised in accordance with provisions of the Depositories Act 1996. Further, every shareholder of an unlisted public company is required to dematerialise its securities before transfer, if such transfer is made on or after 2nd October, 2018.

23/04/2024 No Comments

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

Judgements

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

The petitioner is engaged in the business of generation of electricity through solar plants. The GST returns filed by the petitioner for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2019 were subject to audit. The petitioner was informed about tax liability during audit proceedings on account of wrong availment of ITC and ITC availed with respect to exempted supply. Upon receipt of initial audit observation, the petitioner discharged the entire tax liability alongwith interest. The final audit report was issued much after payment of GST liability. Post audit, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 74 of CGST Act and confirmed the demand through DRC-07. The petitioner contended that it falls under purview of Section 73(1) and 73(5) of CGST Act and therefore, SCN under section 74 is not sustainable. Whereas, the respondent contended that this is the case of fraud and willful misstatement.

23/04/2024 No Comments

Establishment of Non-SEZ IT/ITES business in IT/ITES Special Economic Zones| Insertion of Rule 11B to SEZ Rules

Information

Establishment of Non-SEZ IT/ITES business in IT/ITES Special Economic Zones| Insertion of Rule 11B to SEZ Rules

Post COVID-19, there are many corporate entities which are allowing employees to work on Complete Work From Home (WFH) basis or on hybrid basis, i.e., Employees are required to come to office on selected days. This approach has reduced occupancy of physical premises by corporate offices and caused vacation of various rented premises.

23/04/2024 No Comments