The document explains the legal framework governing the resignation of directors under Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules 15 and 16 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014. It clarifies that resignation is a voluntary and unilateral act that becomes effective from the date the company receives the resignation notice or the future date specified in the notice, whichever is later. Board acceptance is generally not required unless mandated by the company’s Articles of Association. The company must file Form DIR-12 and disclose the resignation in its Board’s Report, while filing Form DIR-11 by the resigning director is optional. The document further discusses judicial precedents on voluntary resignation, withdrawal of resignation, continuing liability for acts committed during tenure, resignation of nominee and foreign directors, and additional disclosure obligations for listed companies. It also examines situations where all directors resign and the resulting statutory mechanism for filling vacancies.
Question: Which provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 govern the resignation of a director in India?
Answer: The resignation of a director in India is governed by Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules 15 and 16 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014. These provisions prescribe the procedure for resignation by a director and the related filing and disclosure requirements to be complied with by the director and the company.
Question: What constitutes “resignation” of an office?
Answer: The Companies Act, 2013 does not define the term “resignation.” According to Ramanatha Aiyar’s Concise Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition), resignation of an office is complete only when it is made with the consent and intention of the incumbent to relinquish the office. The term implies that the person resigning has a lawful right to hold the office, as one cannot resign an office to which he is not entitled or which he has no right to occupy. Thus, resignation is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of an office by its lawful holder.
Question: What is the meaning of the term “resignation” according to its Latin origin?
Answer: The term “resignation” is derived from the Latin expression “Resignatio est juris proprii spontanea refutatio”, which means “the spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right.” Thus, resignation signifies a voluntary and intentional surrender or relinquishment of a right, office, position, or authority by the person entitled to hold it.
Question: How did the Supreme Court define “resignation” in Moti Ram v. Param Devi?
Answer: The Supreme Court, in Moti Ram v. Param Devi (AIR 1993 SC 1662), held that resignation is the spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right and, in relation to an office, it means the giving up or relinquishment of that office. The Court further observed that resignation becomes effective when the act indicating the intention to relinquish the office is communicated to the competent authority.
The Court also emphasized that resignation must be a voluntary and unilateral act. If a resignation is obtained through duress, coercion, or undue pressure, it cannot be regarded as a valid resignation, as it lacks the essential element of voluntariness. In such cases, it may amount to a termination disguised as a resignation rather than a genuine voluntary relinquishment of office.
Question: What is the procedure for resignation of a director under Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013?
Answer: Under Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, a director may resign from his office by giving a notice in writing to the company. Upon receipt of such notice:
1. The Board of Directors shall take note of the resignation;
2. The company shall intimate the Registrar of Companies in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time (i.e., by filing Form DIR-12);
3. The company shall disclose the fact of such resignation in the Board’s Report laid before the members at the immediately following general meeting.
Thus, the resignation becomes effective through a written notice by the director, followed by the prescribed compliances by the company.
Question: Is it mandatory to disclose the resignation of a director in the Board’s Report?
Answer: Yes. Under Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, it is mandatory for the company to disclose the fact of resignation of a director in the Board’s Report laid before the members in the immediately following general meeting.
Accordingly, after receiving a notice of resignation, the company is required not only to intimate the Registrar in Form DIR-12, but also to record and disclose the resignation in the Board’s Report. This requirement ensures transparency and proper disclosure to shareholders regarding changes in the composition of the Board.
Question: Can a director resign verbally or by implication from his conduct?
Answer: No. Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 specifically provides that a director may resign from his office by giving a notice in writing to the company. Therefore, a valid resignation must be communicated in writing and cannot be made verbally or be merely implied from the conduct of the director. A clear written notice expressing the intention to resign is essential for a valid resignation under the Act.
Question: To whom should a director address his resignation letter for it to be validly communicated?
Answer: A director’s resignation should be communicated to the competent authority within the company, namely the Board of Directors, the Chairman, or an authorized officer of the company. It should not be addressed merely to a third party.
The Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. Param Devi observed that resignation becomes effective when the intention to relinquish office is communicated to the competent authority. Accordingly, it is advisable that the resignation letter be addressed to the Board of Directors, the Chairman, or the company at its registered office so that the resignation is properly received and taken on record. Mere communication to a third party would not ordinarily satisfy this requirement.
Question: What is the requirement under Rule 15 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 regarding the resignation of a director?
Answer: Under Rule 15, the company is required to, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the director’s resignation notice, intimate the Registrar of Companies in Form DIR-12 and place the information on its website, if any.
Question: Is it mandatory for a director to file Form DIR-11 upon resignation with the Registrar of Companies?
Answer: No. A resigning director is not mandatorily required to forward a copy of his resignation to the Registrar of Companies. Pursuant to the amendment made by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 and the corresponding amendment to Rule 16 by the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2018, the word “shall” was substituted with “may”. Accordingly, a director may forward a copy of his resignation, along with detailed reasons for the resignation, to the Registrar within 30 days from the date of resignation in the prescribed manner i.e., by filing Form DIR-11 [Form DIR-11 substituted vide the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2023 dated 20.01.2023]. Therefore, such filing is optional and not mandatory.
Question: Can a foreign director authorize another person to file Form DIR-11 on his behalf upon resignation?
Answer: Yes. Pursuant to proviso to Rule 16, where the company has already filed Form DIR-12 with the Registrar under Rule 15, a foreign director resigning from his office may authorize, in writing, any of the following persons to sign and file Form DIR-11 on his behalf, intimating the reasons for resignation:
- A Practising Chartered Accountant;
- A Cost Accountant in Practice;
- A Company Secretary in Practice; or
- Any other resident director of the company.
Such authorization must be given in writing by the foreign director.
Question: When does the resignation of a director become effective?
Answer: Under Section 168(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the resignation of a director takes effect from the date on which the notice of resignation is received by the company or the date specified by the director in the notice, whichever is later. Thus, a director may specify a future effective date in the resignation notice, and in such a case, the resignation will take effect from that later date.
Question: Does non-filing of DIR-12 affect validity of resignation?
Answer: No. Resignation is effective under Section 168(2) once received or on specified date. DIR-12 is a compliance obligation, not a condition for validity.
Question: In case of a conflict between Sections 165(4) and 168(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, which provision should prevail for determining when a director’s resignation becomes effective?
Answer: In the event of a conflict between Section 165(4) and Section 168(2), Section 168(2) should prevail.
Section 168 specifically deals with the resignation of directors and provides that resignation takes effect from the date on which the notice is received by the company or the date specified in the notice, whichever is later. In contrast, Section 165 primarily deals with the maximum number of directorships that an individual may hold and is therefore a general provision in this context.
Section 165(4) provides that where a director resigns from one or more companies to comply with the prescribed limit on directorships, such resignation shall take effect immediately upon dispatch of the resignation letter to the company concerned. However, this provision does not address a situation where the resignation letter is lost in transit and is never received by the company.
Applying the principle of statutory interpretation that a specific provision prevails over a general provision (Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant), Section 168(2), being the specific provision governing resignation of directors, should take precedence.
Accordingly, for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of a director’s resignation, the resignation should be regarded as complete only when the notice of resignation is received by the company, as contemplated under Section 168(2). Mere dispatch of the resignation letter, without its receipt by the company, may not be sufficient to consummate the resignation.
Question: Is acceptance of a director’s resignation by the Board of Directors mandatory?
Answer: No. A director’s resignation is generally regarded as a unilateral act, and therefore its validity does not depend upon acceptance by the Board of Directors, unless otherwise specifically provided in the company’s Articles of Association.
In Rajan Sangameshwaran v. Saralaya Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (3 Comp LJ 140), the Madras Bench of the Company Law Board held that there was no provision under the Companies Act, 1956 or the standard Articles contained in Table A requiring a director’s resignation to be accepted by the Board. Accordingly, once the resignation is duly communicated to the company, it becomes effective in accordance with the applicable legal provisions, and Board acceptance is not a prerequisite for its validity.
Question: Does a director remain liable for acts committed during his tenure even after resignation?
Answer: Yes. As per the proviso to Section 168(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, a director who has resigned continues to be liable for any offences, defaults, non-compliances, or violations that occurred during his tenure as a director. Therefore, resignation does not absolve a director from liability for acts committed while he was holding office.
Question: Is there any special provision under the Companies Act, 2013 for the resignation of a Nominee Director?
Answer: No. The Companies Act, 2013 does not prescribe any separate procedure for the resignation of a Nominee Director. A Nominee Director is required to follow the same resignation procedure as any other director under Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Accordingly, a Nominee Director may resign by giving a written notice of resignation to the company, and the resignation shall take effect from the date on which the notice is received by the company or the date specified in the notice, whichever is later.
However, where the nomination has been made by a financial institution, bank, investor, government authority, or any other nominating body, the terms of the nomination agreement or the Articles of Association may require the Nominee Director to inform or obtain instructions from the nominating entity before tendering the resignation. Such requirements are contractual in nature and are in addition to the provisions of Section 168.
Question: Are there any additional provisions applicable to directors of listed companies regarding resignation?
Answer: Yes. In addition to Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rules 15 and 16 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, directors of listed companies must also comply with the disclosure requirements under the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (SEBI LODR Regulations).
Key additional requirements include:
- The listed entity must disclose the resignation of a director to the stock exchanges within the prescribed timelines under Regulation 30 of the SEBI LODR Regulations.
- The disclosure must include reasons for resignation provided by the director.
- In case of resignation of an independent director, additional compliance such as submission of a detailed resignation letter along with confirmation of no material reasons other than those disclosed is generally required under Schedule III of SEBI LODR.
- The company must ensure continuous disclosure obligations to maintain transparency with investors.
Thus, while the Companies Act governs the statutory resignation process, SEBI regulations impose additional disclosure and transparency requirements for listed companies.
Question: Can resignation be conditional or prospective?
Answer: Yes, a director may specify a future effective date in the resignation letter. Under Section 168(2), resignation takes effect from the date received by the company or the date specified in the notice, whichever is later. Hence, prospective resignation is valid.
Question: Whether a resigned director can withdraw his resignation?
Answer: The Companies Act, 2013 does not contain any specific provision dealing with the withdrawal of a resignation once tendered by a director. Therefore, the issue has largely been addressed through judicial interpretation.
Under Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, a director may resign from his office by giving notice in writing to the company. The resignation takes effect from the date on which the notice is received by the company or the date specified by the director in the notice, whichever is later. The provision does not expressly confer any right upon the director to unilaterally withdraw the resignation after it has become effective.
In Remuka Datla (Dr.) v. Biological E. Ltd., decided on 17 November 2017, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that while a director can resign unilaterally, the withdrawal of such resignation cannot be effected unilaterally. The Court observed that once the resignation has taken effect and the director has ceased to hold office, a subsequent communication seeking withdrawal of the resignation does not automatically restore the directorship. Unless the Board of Directors considers and accepts the request for withdrawal, the cessation continues and the unilateral withdrawal has no legal effect.
Accordingly, the following principles may be drawn:
1. A director may resign unilaterally by giving notice in accordance with Section 168.
2. Before the resignation becomes effective, it may be arguable that the director can withdraw the resignation, particularly if the company has not acted upon it and no rights of third parties have intervened.
3. Once the resignation has become effective and the director has ceased to hold office, he cannot, as a matter of right, unilaterally withdraw the resignation and claim restoration to office.
4. Any restoration after the resignation has taken effect would ordinarily require acceptance by the competent authority of the company, typically the Board of Directors, or a fresh appointment in accordance with the Act and the Articles of Association.
Therefore, the better view is that a director does not possess an absolute or unilateral right to withdraw an effective resignation. After cessation of office, his return to the Board depends upon acceptance of the withdrawal by the company or a fresh appointment in accordance with law.
Question: What would be the legal position where all directors have resigned, filed DIR-11, their resignations were not accepted by the company, and thereafter they seek to withdraw their resignations, but there is no Board in existence to consider or accept the withdrawal?
Answer: In my view, the answer depends upon whether the resignations had already become effective under Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Section 168(1) provides that a director’s resignation takes effect from the date on which the notice is received by the company or the date specified by the director in the notice, whichever is later. The provision does not make the effectiveness of resignation contingent upon acceptance by the company or the Board of Directors.
Accordingly, once the effective date contemplated by Section 168(1) has arrived, the resignation becomes operative by force of statute and the director ceases to hold office, irrespective of whether the company has accepted the resignation or filed Form DIR-12.
Therefore, where all directors have resigned and their resignations have already become effective, the mere fact that the company did not accept the resignations would not, by itself, keep them in office.
In such a situation, a subsequent communication seeking withdrawal of resignation may face substantial legal difficulty. As held in Remuka Datla (Dr.) v. Biological E. Ltd., while resignation may be unilateral, withdrawal of an effective resignation is not ordinarily unilateral and requires acceptance by the competent authority of the company.
The practical difficulty arises because there is no Board remaining in office to consider or accept the request for withdrawal. Consequently, the former directors cannot automatically restore themselves to office merely by issuing withdrawal letters.
In such circumstances, a strong argument exists that the vacancy created by the resignations must be filled through the statutory mechanism provided in Section 168(3), namely, by appointment of the required number of directors by the promoter or, in the absence of a promoter, by the Central Government. Once a valid Board is constituted, the company may consider whether the former directors should be appointed again in accordance with law.
However, another possible view may be advanced. If the withdrawal notice was communicated before the resignation became effective under Section 168(1), it may be argued that there was in fact no completed cessation of office and that the resignation stood validly withdrawn before taking effect. In such a case, the directors may contend that they continued in office and that no occasion arose for invoking Section 168(3). The outcome would depend on the timing of the withdrawal and the specific facts of the case.
Example: ABC Private Limited has three directors, namely Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C.
On 1 June 2026, all three directors submit their resignation letters to the Company. However, the resignations are not intended to take immediate effect. Each resignation letter specifically states that the resignation shall become effective from 30 June 2026.
In terms of Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, where a director specifies a future effective date in the resignation notice, the resignation takes effect from the later of:
(a) the date on which the notice is received by the company; or
(b) the date specified by the director in the notice.
Accordingly, although the notices were received by the Company on 1 June 2026, the resignations would become effective only on 30 June 2026, being the later date.
Before 30 June 2026 arrives, suppose that on 20 June 2026, Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C each submit a written communication withdrawing their respective resignations and expressing their intention to continue as directors of the Company.
In such circumstances, an argument may be made that the resignations had not yet become effective as on 20 June 2026 and, therefore, the directors had not ceased to hold office. Since no vacancy had actually arisen and the directors continued to remain on the Board up to that date, the withdrawal operates before the resignations take effect.
Consequently, it may be contended that there was never a point of time at which the Company was left without directors and, therefore, the contingency contemplated under Section 168(3) — namely, all directors having resigned resulting in a management vacuum — never arose.
This situation is distinguishable from a case where a resignation has already become effective and the director has ceased to hold office. In the latter case, a subsequent withdrawal would amount to an attempt to restore an office already vacated, whereas in the present example the withdrawal occurs before the effective date of resignation and before the office is actually vacated.
Remark: Therefore, where the resignations had already become effective and all directors had ceased to hold office, the better view appears to be that unilateral withdrawal would not automatically revive their directorships merely because no Board exists to accept the withdrawal. The resulting management vacuum would ordinarily have to be addressed through Section 168(3) or other applicable statutory mechanisms rather than through self-restoration by the former directors.
*****
Disclaimer: Nothing contained in this document is to be construed as a legal opinion or view of either of the author whatsoever and the content is to be used strictly for informational and educational purposes. While due care has been taken in preparing this article, certain mistakes and omissions may creep in. the author does not accept any liability for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Author Bio
