It is not mandatory for companies to provide its directors, the facility to attend meetings through video conferencing.
Now , it is optional for the companies to organise the board meeting of the company through video conferencing. For listed companies , they have to adhere the listing rules over and above MCA rules.
v Inform every director of board meeting including that they can participate through video conference and also get confirmation from them whether they will participate in person or video conference.
v Place of meeting will be the place, where chairman or company secretary is sitting.
v A roll check will be made by chairman and every director and company secretary present in the meeting will state his name, designation, city etc.
v Record the proceedings of the meeting and preserve the same for one year.
v At the end, decision of the meeting will be announced by the Chairman.
Ref: MCA Circular 28/2011 dated 20/05/2011.
The following case law will throw some light on the subject.
In State of Maharashtra v. Dr Praful B. Desai (2003) the Supreme Court held, as to the question whether recording of evidence by video conferencing is permissible:
“Video conferencing has nothing to do with virtual realty. Advance in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable to see and here events, taking place for away, as they are actually taking place. Video conferencing is advancement in science in technology which permits one to see here and talk with someone far away with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching one can see, here and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other. Recording of evidence by Video conferencing also satisfied the object of providing, in section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. The accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to setup video conferencing equipment in the Court itself for recording the evidence through video conferencing.”
In State of Maharashtra v. Dr Praful B. Desai (2003) the Supreme Court held, as to the question whether recording of evidence by video conferencing is permissible:
“Video conferencing has nothing to do with virtual realty. Advance in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable to see and here events, taking place for away, as they are actually taking place. Video conferencing is advancement in science in technology which permits one to see here and talk with someone far away with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching one can see, here and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other. Recording of evidence by Video conferencing also satisfied the object of providing, in section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. The accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to setup video conferencing equipment in the Court itself for recording the evidence through video conferencing.”
Video Conferencing is the utmost revolution of technology. It can make you feel of being in a conference where you are not present in real. So there is a real good news for those directors and other responsibles to take a part in virtual conferencing through Video Conferencing so far.
ReplyDelete