Strict Schedule XIII compliance governs managerial appointments, and a reasoned refusal of approval was upheld.

Section 269 of the Companies Act, 1956 required prior Central Government approval for appointment as Chairman and Managing Director unless the Schedule XIII conditions were strictly met. The court held that the company failed the adequate profits condition under clause (f) of Part I, because the provision required the prescribed financial position to exist in the relevant year or any of the three preceding years, not merely one of four years. The refusal of approval was also upheld because the communication referred to the notice, financial position, explanations, and material on misuse of position and related-party transactions, and therefore was not invalid for want of reasons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under section 269 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Schedule XIII, prior approval of the Central Government was necessary for the appellant's appointment as Chairman and Managing Director; (ii) Whether the Central Government's refusal of approval was invalid for want of reasons.

Issue (i): Whether, under section 269 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Schedule XIII, prior approval of the Central Government was necessary for the appellant's appointment as Chairman and Managing Director.

Analysis: Section 269(2) required Central Government approval unless the appointment satisfied the conditions in Parts I and II of Schedule XIII. Clause (f) of Part I required that the company should not have suffered loss or have inadequate profits in the relevant financial year or in any of the three immediately preceding financial years. On the material before the Court, the company had not satisfied the adequate profits condition, and the attempt to read the clause as requiring profits in only one of the four years was rejected as contrary to the text and scheme of the provision.

Conclusion: Prior approval of the Central Government was necessary, and the appellant's appointment did not fall within the exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government's refusal of approval was invalid for want of reasons.

Analysis: The Court held that the approval process under section 269 involved objective consideration of relevant materials, but the impugned communication was not a bare or non-speaking rejection. It referred to the show-cause notice, the company's financial position, the explanations offered by the appellant, and the material suggesting misuse of position and related-party transactions. The appellant had been given notice and personal hearing, and the order disclosed why the explanations were found unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The refusal of approval was not invalid for want of reasons and was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of approval failed, and the appellate court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where section 269 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies, exemption from Central Government approval is available only if the Schedule XIII conditions are strictly satisfied, and a refusal order is sustainable if it fairly discloses the material considered and the basis for rejecting the explanation, even without elaborate reasoning.

---