Section 188 (3) – Where a director or other staff member may enter into a contract or agreement without the consent of the Board of Directors or by a particular decision and is not ratified by the Board of Directors or shareholders within three months of the date of the contract or agreement (C/A), this contract or agreement is, the board of directors, which is not applicable, and if the C/A is in a meeting with an associate party of a director or is authorized by another director, the directors concerned compensate the company for any losses it suffered. Explanation – The above limits, set for the transaction or transactions, apply to transactions that must be made individually or in conjunction with previous transactions during a fiscal year. Section 15, paragraph 2, where a director is interested in a C/A with a related party, cannot attend the Director`s meeting during deliberations on the purpose of this C/A. (i.e., the Director must go outside at the time of consideration of this particular subject) Rule 15 (3) Previously, companies that had paid the capital of 10. Crore or more had been authorized by a special decision on the part of the shareholders. This limit has been abandoned and the new limit values have been introduced. The revised provision provides that a company does not enter into transactions or transactions without the prior consent of the shareholders, when the transaction or transactions are to be concluded, the following should be taken into account: in the subsection (3), the loss must be corrected by a director (if C/A is with a related part of the director) and by a director who authorized such a C/A. Section 2(76) I and Section 3 of Section 3 referred to the fact that the independent director of a company is a related party, but that the independent director of the holding company is not a related party. If the sub-clauses vi) and vii) do not apply, nothing applies to instructions, instructions or instructions issued in a professional capacity; (In other words, if a CS or CA gives advice or instructions to the director or director of a company and an officer or officer of his professional quality, then that CS or CA is not a close party). The term “lease” is used, not “licence,” which raises the question that when a company enters into transactions with an associated party to issue a trademark license, as if such transactions fall within the jurisdiction of an associated party or not? (i) this body is a related party pursuant to Section 2(76) of the Corporations Act, 2013; or (f) the appointment of an associated party in an office or profit location in the company, its subsidiary or its associated company; Also provided that this sub-part does not apply to transactions that the company enters into in due form, with transactions other than those not made on the basis of arm length. The transaction dealing with the length of the expression poor refers to a transaction between two related parties that is carried out as if they had nothing to do with each other, so that there is no conflict of interest.
For example, we say that if A Ltd. and B Ltd are affiliated parties c ltd and C Ltd is in transactions u/s 188 with B Ltd. then according to company law, B ltd is included in the vote, which makes sense because it is interested in this transaction, but if we even see A Ltd. does not have the right to vote, which is somehow illogical.