https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195741 Section 314 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies only where a director himself holds an office or place of profit within the statutory meaning; ordinary remuneration attached to a director's office is not enough. Additional salary, fees, commission, perquisites or similar benefits beyond director's remuneration must be shown before the provision is attracted. On the pleadings and affidavit evidence, no such additional benefit or qualifying office was proved in relation to the director, so the relative clause could not be invoked against his son as an employee. The deeming vacation of office under Section 314(2)(a) therefore did not arise, and the claim that both respondents had vacated their offices failed. en-us Sat, 20 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:58:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195741 Section 314 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies only where a director himself holds an office or place of profit within the statutory meaning; ordinary remuneration attached to a director's office is not enough. Additional salary, fees, commission, perquisites or similar benefits beyond director's remuneration must be shown before the provision is attracted. On the pleadings and affidavit evidence, no such additional benefit or qualifying office was proved in relation to the director, so the relative clause could not be invoked against his son as an employee. The deeming vacation of office under Section 314(2)(a) therefore did not arise, and the claim that both respondents had vacated their offices failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Sat, 20 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195741