https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100282 Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as available to a company's marketing manager because "officer" is defined inclusively and extends to a manager, so the maintainability objection failed. On remuneration, section 314(1B) was applied by reference to total monthly remuneration, not aggregate annual earnings, and the broader definition of "remuneration" in section 198 was not read into that provision. Bonus, leave encashment, medical reimbursement and similar contingent sums were not counted as monthly emoluments on the facts found, so no contravention of section 314(2C) and no Central Government approval requirement arose. en-us Thu, 06 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:58:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100282 Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as available to a company's marketing manager because "officer" is defined inclusively and extends to a manager, so the maintainability objection failed. On remuneration, section 314(1B) was applied by reference to total monthly remuneration, not aggregate annual earnings, and the broader definition of "remuneration" in section 198 was not read into that provision. Bonus, leave encashment, medical reimbursement and similar contingent sums were not counted as monthly emoluments on the facts found, so no contravention of section 314(2C) and no Central Government approval requirement arose. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 06 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100282