Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Overall, making ex gratia payments from a subsidiary to the parent company’s directors is permissible if properly approved by the subsidiary’s board and in accordance with corporate law. The parent company’s involvement or liability depends on whether it has explicitly guaranteed or authorized such payments. ["LAM SOON (M) BHD AND CIK CHONG SIEW YOON - Industrial Court"], [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2008_2_MLRH_485)
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the complex world of corporate structures, where parent companies and subsidiaries operate under the same umbrella, questions about financial transactions often arise. One pressing issue for business leaders is: can ex gratia payment be made from subsidiary to parent company directors? Ex gratia payments—voluntary gestures without legal obligation—sound straightforward, but they carry significant legal hurdles, especially across corporate boundaries.
This article dives into the legal principles governing such payments, drawing from key case law and statutory provisions. We'll examine the doctrine of separate legal entities, fiduciary duties, and potential exceptions like fraud. Whether you're a director, shareholder, or executive, understanding these rules can prevent costly disputes and ensure compliance.
Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Generally, ex gratia payments from a subsidiary to its parent company's directors are not permissible under the principle of separate legal entities, unless specific circumstances such as fraud or abuse of the corporate structure are established. Such payments could breach the subsidiary’s legal independence and invite scrutiny if they violate statutory or contractual rules. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD vs IRHAM NIAGA SDN BHD & ANOR - 2010 MarsdenLR 3443KYROS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI - 2013 MarsdenLR 990
The core issue stems from the fact that subsidiaries, even wholly-owned ones, maintain distinct legal personalities. Courts consistently uphold this separation to prevent misuse of corporate forms.
A parent company and its subsidiary are separate legal entities. This is reaffirmed across multiple precedents: a parent company and a subsidiary company... are distinct legal entities. SPM ENERGY SDN BHD & ANOR vs MULTI DISCOVERY SDN BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 3205 Similarly, EDMUND CHARLES LIEBENBERG vs ICB-GRIFFIN MANUFACTURING SDN BHD holds that the parent (holding) and subsidiary companies are two separate legal entities; (2) officers of the parent company who are on the Board of the subsidiary are not representatives of the parent....
Even if the parent exercises control, it cannot dictate payments from the subsidiary's funds to its own directors without proper justification. Funds like the RM400,000 payment in TERRANOVA BUILDERS SDN BHD vs REPC SERVICES SDN BHD & ANOR - 2018 MarsdenLR 1380 do not automatically bind the parent or authorize director payouts.
Directors appointed to a subsidiary, even at the parent's request, owe their primary duty to the subsidiary, not the parent. As stated: If new Directors are appointed even at the request of the parent company and even if such Directors were removable by the parent company, such Directors of the subsidiary will owe their duty to their companies (subsidiaries). They are not to be dictated by the parent company if it is not in the interests of those companies (subsidiaries). Smart Chip Ltd. VS Secretary to Government Transport Department - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 1876Bhatia Industries & Infrastructure Limited VS Asian Natural Resources (India) Limited (formerly Bhatia International Limited) - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1146STARLIGHT BRUCHEM LTD. , (FORMALLY KNOWN AS NARANG DISTILLERY) VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 703
This principle protects the subsidiary's assets from being siphoned off. VY PLUMBING CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs PEMBINAAN LEGENDA UNGGUL SDN BHD & ORS - 2017 MarsdenLR 1355 clarifies that payments to directors must be authorized, or they risk breaching fiduciary duties.
Ex gratia payments are discretionary, but their permissibility hinges on the subsidiary's governance. They must align with internal procedures, board resolutions, and laws like the Companies Act (e.g., Sections 232, 236, 226). Unauthorized payouts could be seen as illegal distributions or breaches of duty. AGESON BERHAD vs DATO FOO CHU JONG & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1991NURSYAFAWATI KASIM LWN. MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KOTA BHARU BANDAR RAYA ISLAM - 2022 MarsdenLR 1305
In one context, ex gratia payments were offset against bonuses under a collective agreement, where group profits (RM5,120,938) justified obligations despite individual losses. KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN WARTAWAN MALAYSIA vs UTUSAN MELAYU (MALAYSIA) BERHAD The court noted: The employees of that subsidiary company were given a two months bonus in 2009... The court allowed the respondent to offset previously paid ex gratia amounts from the due bonus.
However, this doesn't extend to parent directors without clear subsidiary benefit.
Payments from subsidiaries to parents or their directors are internal to the subsidiary unless fraud intervenes. ANAND PRAKASH MITTAL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 26421 describes a scenario where an employee returned to the parent after deputation, but the subsidiary operated distinctly: though it operates as a separate entity distinct from its parent/holding company....
Courts reject treating entities as one without evidence of abuse. In MUIR MILLS VS PRESIDING OFFICER - 2012 Supreme(All) 2648, close control didn't merge identities: they cannot be treated separately.
Rarely, courts pierce the veil for fraud or abuse:- Proven sham transactions or wrongful conduct. MLGH (SABAH) SDN BHD & ANOR vs RAINBOW BAY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL - 2023 MarsdenLR 1289VY PLUMBING CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs PEMBINAAN LEGENDA UNGGUL SDN BHD & ORS - 2017 MarsdenLR 1355- Misuse of separate personality to evade duties.
Even then, ex gratia to parent directors requires subsidiary authorization. Shareholder influence doesn't override director autonomy. Arvind Kumar Newar VS S S Kothari - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 24: The fact that the parent company exercised shareholder’s rights on its subsidiaries could not obliterate the decision making power or authority of the subsidiary companies.
Under the Companies Act 1965 (Revised 1973), directors must act in the company's best interests. Section 169(5) requires directors' reports on balance sheets, underscoring accountability. KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN WARTAWAN MALAYSIA vs UTUSAN MELAYU (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
Improper ex gratia risks:- Breach of fiduciary duties.- Illegal dividends.- Challenges from shareholders or regulators.
In INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ASHA RANI PANDEY - 2013 Supreme(All) 1925, ex gratia was distinct from statutory compensation, made per board policy—but tied to the paying entity.
To navigate these risks:- Secure Board Approval: Document resolutions justifying payments as subsidiary-beneficial.- Adopt Policies: Clear guidelines on voluntary payouts.- Seek Advice: Consult counsel to check Companies Act compliance and duties.- Audit Transactions: Ensure no veil-piercing red flags like fraud.
Ex gratia payments from subsidiaries to parent directors are typically impermissible without robust authorization, due to separate entity principles and fiduciary obligations. While voluntary, they demand scrutiny to avoid breaches.
Key Takeaways:- Parent-subsidiary separation is sacrosanct absent fraud. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD vs IRHAM NIAGA SDN BHD & ANOR - 2010 MarsdenLR 3443KYROS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI - 2013 MarsdenLR 990- Directors serve the subsidiary first.- Proper governance protects all parties.
For tailored guidance, engage legal experts. Stay compliant to safeguard your corporate structure.
The personnel in these "common user" divisions were hired and paid by the parent Company (LSOSM and later the Company Berhad) to serve both itself and its fully-owned subsidiary, Ace, upon which a charge was made for such services on its account. ... Can a parent Company bind a workman in a contract of employment to render service to its subsidiary as above-described?. ... Therefore, it is the decision of the Company to terminate ....
It is also alleged that on 5/6/2015, the petitioner made the part payment of US$ 49990 to M/s. ... the subsidiary company, but upon the deputation period being over, as he continued to hold his lien, he came back to his parent company i.e. ... The Company is managed at Apex level by the Board constituted by the Board of Directors, and though it operates as a separate entity distinct from its parent/holding company....
That observation was made in regard to the language of a resolution of the board of directors of a Company in pursuance of which the payment in question was made to the assessee who was an employee of the Company. ... SUTHERLAND, DECEASED Income tax-Employee of Company-Ex gratia payment made to his wife by Company after his death-Profits from employment-Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 188), Sect....
but sit at the Board meeting as directors and agent of the subsidiary; (3) a resolution of the Board of Directors of the subsidiary does not bind the parent company. ... Ltd & Ors [1986] 1 MLJ 68 wherein it was held that: (1) the parent (holding) and subsidiary companies are two separate legal entities; (2) officers of the parent company who are on the Board of the subsidiary are not representa....
of the parent company but sit at the Board meeting as directors and agent of the subsidiary; (3) a resolution of the Board of Directors of the subsidiary does not bind the parent company. ... , the parent provided management services for the subsidiary. ... Ltd & Ors[1985] 2 MLRH 247, [1986] 1 MLJ 68 wherein it was held that: (1) the parent (holding) and subsidiary companies are....
as directors and agent of the subsidiary; (3) a resolution of the Board of Directors of the subsidiary does not bind the parent company. ... Ltd & Ors [1986] 1 MLJ 68 wherein it was held that: (1) the parent (holding) and subsidiary companies are two separate legal entities; (2) officers of the parent company who are on the Board of the subsidiary are not representatives of the parent....
who are on the Board of the subsidiary are not representatives of the parent company but sit at the Board meeting as directors and agent of the subsidiary; (3) a resolution of the Board of Directors of the subsidiary does not bind the parent company. ... , and in particular where, as here, the parent provided management services for the subsidiary. ... The letter of acceptance of the petitioner's ....
Companies Act 1965 (Revised 1973) which reads: 169 (5) The directors of a company shall cause to be attached to every balance-sheet made out under subsection (3) a report made in accordance with a resolution of the directors and signed by not less than two of the directors ... The employees of that subsidiary company were given a two months bonus in 2009. ... It has several subsidiary companies. Its profits as a group was RM5,120,9....
Viewed in this background, it is sen that the parent company i.e. National Textile Corporation Limited which is the parent company controls every movement of its subsidiary National Textiles Corporation (U.P.) Limited which does what the parent company says. Thus, they cannot be treated separately. ... Limited, Kanpur is a public limited company wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government and is a subsidiary of the Nationa....
The officers of the parent company who are on the board of the subsidiary are not representatives of the parent company but sit at the board meeting as directors and agent of the subsidiary and the resolution of the Board of Directors of the subsidiary does not bind the parent company. ... Four senior officers of the holding (parent) company were also ....
The fact that the parent company exercised shareholder’s rights on its subsidiaries could not obliterate the decision making power or authority of the subsidiary companies. The Apex Court held that even if directors in a subsidiary company were appointed at the request of the parent company and directions for their removal were made by the parent company, such directors of the subsidiary companies, who owed their duty to the company could not be dictated by the parent company.
They are not to be dictated by the parent company if it is not in the interests of those companies (subsidiaries). The Directors of the subsidiary under their articles are the managers of the companies. The fact that the parent company exercises shareholders' influence on its subsidiaries cannot obliterate the decision-making power or authority of its (subsidiary's) Directors. If new Directors are appointed even at the request of the parent company and even if such Directors were removable by the parent company, such Directors of the subsidiary will owe their duty to their companie....
If new directors are appointed even at the request of the parent company and even if such directors were removable by the parent company, such directors of the subsidiary will owe their duty to their companies (subsidiaries). The fact that the parent company exercises shareholder’s influence on its subsidiaries cannot obliterate the decision-making power or authority of its (subsidiary’s) directors. They are not to be dictated by the parent company if it is not in the interests of those companies (subsidiaries). The directors of the subsidiary under their Articles are the m....
If new Directors are appointed even at the request of the parent company and even if such Directors were removable by the parent company, such Directors of the subsidiary will owe their duty to their companies (subsidiaries). They are not to be dictated by the parent company if it is not in the interests of those companies (subsidiaries). The Directors of the subsidiary under their articles are the managers of the companies. The fact that the parent company exercises shareholders' influence on its subsidiaries cannot obliterate the decision making power or authority of its ....
So, it has nothing to do with the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the ex gratia payment was made by the Board of Directors as per general policy of the Industries.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
