MCA has vide its notification dated 26th January, 2018 eased the requirement of a DIN (Director Identification Number) for appointment of a Director in an existing company. They have amended the Companies (Appointment & Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 to that extent.
Rule 9(1) has been amended as follows:
" (1) Every applicant, who intends to be appointed as director of an existing company shall make an application electronically in Form DIR-3, to the central Government for allotment of a Director Identification Number (DIN) along with such fees as provided under the companies (Registration offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.
Provided that in case of proposed directors not having approved DIN, the particulars of maximum three directors shall be mentioned in Form No.INC-32 (SPICe) and DIN may be allotted to maximum three proposed directors through Form INC-32 (SPICe)";
What this means is that if a person is proposed to be appointed as a Director of an existing company (as against a company to be incorporated), then he need not mandatorily have a DIN, which was a pre-existing condition. In that case, the company has to file form INC-32 (SPICe) and this form INC-32 (SPICe) can take maximum 3 DIN applications. The additional document to be attached to the form INC-32 (SPICe) is the board resolution approving the appointment of these new directors.
Now this form INC-32(SPICe) is an incorporation form, so why confuse it with the DIN forms, it is not clear at all. Why not enable form DIR-3 itself to take upto 3 applications and allow it to be uploaded that way with the board resolution attached. Perhaps they could have formed a DIR-3 (company) form as against a DIR-3 (individual) form. Confusion worse confounded.
Then again we come to Rule 9(3) which is pertaining to form DIR-3. The main sub rule 9(3)(a) has been left as it is i.e.
"The applicant shall download Form DIR-3 from the portal, fill in the required particulars sought 1[therein, verify and sign the form] and after attaching copies of the following documents, scan and file the entire set of documents electronically-"
The heading of Rule 9 has been changed to
"Application for allotment of Director rdentificataon Number before appointment in an existing company,,;"
Earlier it was
"Application for Allotment of Director Identification Number"
Now under this revised heading of Rule 9, there are two forms prescribed i.e. INC-32 (SPICe) and form DIR-3 without clearly specifying when both of these forms are to be used.
It is not clear now how many forms are to be used. DIR-3 by the Director, INC 32(SPICe) by the company and thereafter another form DIR-12 for appointment of Directors.
MCA is clearly losing its way, it is a badly drafted amendment with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Rule 9(1) has been amended as follows:
" (1) Every applicant, who intends to be appointed as director of an existing company shall make an application electronically in Form DIR-3, to the central Government for allotment of a Director Identification Number (DIN) along with such fees as provided under the companies (Registration offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.
Provided that in case of proposed directors not having approved DIN, the particulars of maximum three directors shall be mentioned in Form No.INC-32 (SPICe) and DIN may be allotted to maximum three proposed directors through Form INC-32 (SPICe)";
What this means is that if a person is proposed to be appointed as a Director of an existing company (as against a company to be incorporated), then he need not mandatorily have a DIN, which was a pre-existing condition. In that case, the company has to file form INC-32 (SPICe) and this form INC-32 (SPICe) can take maximum 3 DIN applications. The additional document to be attached to the form INC-32 (SPICe) is the board resolution approving the appointment of these new directors.
Now this form INC-32(SPICe) is an incorporation form, so why confuse it with the DIN forms, it is not clear at all. Why not enable form DIR-3 itself to take upto 3 applications and allow it to be uploaded that way with the board resolution attached. Perhaps they could have formed a DIR-3 (company) form as against a DIR-3 (individual) form. Confusion worse confounded.
Then again we come to Rule 9(3) which is pertaining to form DIR-3. The main sub rule 9(3)(a) has been left as it is i.e.
"The applicant shall download Form DIR-3 from the portal, fill in the required particulars sought 1[therein, verify and sign the form] and after attaching copies of the following documents, scan and file the entire set of documents electronically-"
The heading of Rule 9 has been changed to
"Application for allotment of Director rdentificataon Number before appointment in an existing company,,;"
Earlier it was
"Application for Allotment of Director Identification Number"
Now under this revised heading of Rule 9, there are two forms prescribed i.e. INC-32 (SPICe) and form DIR-3 without clearly specifying when both of these forms are to be used.
It is not clear now how many forms are to be used. DIR-3 by the Director, INC 32(SPICe) by the company and thereafter another form DIR-12 for appointment of Directors.
MCA is clearly losing its way, it is a badly drafted amendment with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment