Minimum directors' remuneration can be considered despite losses, but approval remains for the statutory authority on fresh review.

The statutory scheme for directors' remuneration distinguishes between remuneration linked to net profits and minimum remuneration where profits are absent or inadequate. The Company Law Board erred in refusing approval solely because the company had no net profits and carried accumulated losses, without considering the provision permitting reasonable minimum remuneration subject to approval. The refusal was therefore set aside. However, the High Court declined to grant approval itself, holding that the company's financial position and later developments required reconsideration by the statutory authority. The matter was remitted for fresh decision under the correct legal framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Company Law Board erred in refusing approval to the proposed remuneration by treating the applications as governed only by the provisions relating to remuneration linked to net profits and by failing to consider the effect of the provision permitting minimum remuneration where profits are absent or inadequate; (ii) Whether the Court should itself direct approval of the proposed remuneration or remit the matter to the Company Law Board for reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the Company Law Board erred in refusing approval to the proposed remuneration by treating the applications as governed only by the provisions relating to remuneration linked to net profits and by failing to consider the effect of the provision permitting minimum remuneration where profits are absent or inadequate.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing directors' remuneration distinguishes between remuneration linked to net profits and minimum remuneration where profits are absent or inadequate. The Board proceeded on the footing that no remuneration could be sanctioned because the company had no net profits and carried forward losses. That approach overlooked the provision which operates notwithstanding the general limits on remuneration and permits payment of reasonable minimum remuneration subject to approval. The relevant applications were therefore not to be rejected solely on the basis that the company had not yet wiped out its accumulated losses.

Conclusion: The refusal suffered from error because the Board failed to consider the application under the provision relating to minimum remuneration.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should itself direct approval of the proposed remuneration or remit the matter to the Company Law Board for reconsideration.

Analysis: Although the Board had erred in its approach, the financial position of the company, the continuing losses, and the subsequent developments required consideration of all relevant facts by the statutory authority. The record did not justify a judicial command granting approval in the terms sought. The proper course was to set aside the refusal and require the Board to decide the application afresh in light of the correct statutory provision and the company's financial position.

Conclusion: The Court declined to direct approval and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Company Law Board.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refusal was set aside, but the question of approval to the directors' remuneration was left to be reconsidered by the statutory authority under the correct legal framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme expressly permits minimum remuneration notwithstanding the absence of net profits, an authority errs if it refuses approval solely on the ground of accumulated losses or lack of profits; however, the grant of approval remains a matter for informed statutory discretion on reconsideration.

---