Director remuneration and statutory approval must match the capacity in which services are rendered and remain relevant to the approval purpose.

Remuneration paid to a director for services rendered in a distinct capacity, such as part-time technical adviser, was treated as outside the director-remuneration ceiling in section 309 of the Companies Act, 1956, so approval under section 310 was not required for that component. Section 637A was read as permitting only conditions that are germane to the statutory purpose of the approval; conditions based on unrelated income or third-party shareholdings were therefore impermissible. Where additional remuneration was proposed for directorial work, approval under section 310 was required, but any attached conditions still had to satisfy the limits of section 637A and were to be reconsidered if not properly linked to the statutory object.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether remuneration paid to a director for services as part-time technical adviser falls within the remuneration restrictions in section 309 of the Companies Act, 1956 and requires approval under section 310. (ii) Whether the Central Government could attach conditions under section 637A that were unrelated to the statutory purpose, including conditions based on income from another company. (iii) Whether the additional remuneration proposed for directorial work under the second resolution required approval and could be subjected to conditional approval.

Issue (i): Whether remuneration paid to a director for services as part-time technical adviser falls within the remuneration restrictions in section 309 of the Companies Act, 1956 and requires approval under section 310.

Analysis: Section 309 was read as dealing with remuneration payable to directors in their capacity as directors and as part of the scheme governing managerial remuneration under section 198. The remuneration for technical-adviser work was treated as payable for services rendered in a distinct capacity, namely an office of profit permitted by section 314, and not as remuneration for directorial work. The majority reasoned that the statute did not expressly bring such remuneration within the ceiling in section 309(4), and that the legal distinction between remuneration as director and remuneration for another valid office must be maintained.

Conclusion: The remuneration for part-time technical-adviser work did not fall within section 309, and no approval under section 310 was necessary for that part of the remuneration.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government could attach conditions under section 637A that were unrelated to the statutory purpose, including conditions based on income from another company.

Analysis: Section 637A was treated as conferring only an incidental power to impose conditions, limitations, or restrictions when approval is otherwise authorised by the Act. The conditions had to bear a real connection with the matter for which approval was sought and could not be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. A condition that reduced remuneration by reference to earnings from an independent company and family shareholdings in that company was held to be unrelated to the petitioner-company's remuneration arrangement and to the statutory purpose of controlling company remuneration.

Conclusion: The impugned conditions were invalid to the extent they were unrelated and arbitrary, and they were liable to be struck down.

Issue (iii): Whether the additional remuneration proposed for directorial work under the second resolution required approval and could be subjected to conditional approval.

Analysis: The additional remuneration was treated as an increase in remuneration of a director within the scheme of section 310, and the approval requirement was therefore attracted. However, any conditions attached to such approval still had to satisfy the limits of section 637A and be relevant to the statutory object. Since the combined treatment of the two categories of remuneration was not justified on the record, the Central Government was directed to reconsider the question of conditions for the second resolution afresh.

Conclusion: Approval was required for the second resolution, but the attached conditions could not stand as framed and the matter had to be reconsidered.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in part: the unrelated conditions attached to the approval were quashed, the Central Government was directed to reconsider the second resolution, and no writ issued in respect of the first resolution.

Ratio Decidendi: Remuneration paid to a director for services rendered in a distinct and valid capacity other than as director is not automatically governed by the ceiling and approval regime applicable to directors' remuneration, and conditions attached to statutory approval must be germane to the purpose for which approval is required.

---