Can A company enter into a Related Party Transaction without Shareholder Approval: If yes, to what an extent?

Introduction: 'yes'

A company generally deals with the people it already knows well – the promoters, relatives and the firms under their control. These types of related party transactions are legitimate, but they also carry an intrinsic risk that the weightage will move away from the company to the people who control it. Discussing whether the company can enter into a related party transaction without approval of shareholders? Then the answer is yes, but this yes is neither absolute nor vague. As per Indian law, Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013, requires Board approval for covered transactions, while outlining the requirement to obtain prior approval of shareholders only while dealing with larger transactions and not for the ordinary course of business at arm's length. By this, we can say that the law leaves a demarcated category of related party dealings to the Board alone. This article outlines the circumstances in which shareholder approval can be bypassed, examines the consequences of non-compliance, and argues that in promoter-controlled companies, where the board itself is rarely independent, these exemptions weaken the safeguard the statute appears to promise.

Statutory Framework

The beginning point is to understand the term “related party". As per Section 2(76) of the Companies Act, 2013, this defines a “related party”. It includes directors and key managerial personnel and their relatives, firms and companies in which they hold specified interests, and holding, subsidiary and associate companies. This section matters because the transactions caught by Section 188 are those between the company and any such person.

Section 188(1) lists the covered transactions: sale, purchase or supply of goods or materials, dealings in property, leasing, availing or rendering of services, appointment to an office or place of profit, and underwriting of securities. Concerning these, the core rule is , ordinary resolution is presented and the Board must pass it by give consent. Shareholder approval is not the common essential but an additional layer applicable only above the mentioned thresholds. Section 188 also demarcates transactions in the ordinary course of business, provided they are on an arm's length basis. The next Part examines how these provisions determine when shareholders are, and are not, consulted.

When shareholder approval is and isn’t required

When shareholder approval is and isn’t required: Three situations.

First, ordinary course and arm’s length transactions fall outside Section 188(1) altogether. The Act does not define “ordinary course of business”, so the Board largely decides what qualifies.

Second, transactions below the thresholds in Rule 15(3) of the 2014 Rules need only Board consent. Shareholder approval is required, for example, for goods exceeding teper centnt of turnover or property exceeding teper centnt of net worth.

Third, transactions between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary with consolidated accounts need no separate shareholder resoluti...

The result is that the “no” in answer to the question is not an exception but a large part of the framework. Shareholders are consulted only on the largest and least ordinary transactions, and the Board, not the shareholders, decides which transactions fall outside that net.

Listed companies: the stronger regime

Where a transaction crosses the Rule 15(3) thresholds, shareholder approval by resolution is required, and a member who is a related party may not vote. This bar does not apply to private companies, under a Section 462 notification, or companies where ninety per cent or more of members are promoter relatives or related parties. Companies required to have an audit committee also need its prior approval under Section 177(4)(iv).

Listed companies face Regulation 23 of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015: audit committee approval for all related party transactions, shareholder approval for material ones, and abstention by all related parties, whether or not party to the transaction.

The contrast is instructive. The Act asks shareholders to approve only transactions above the thresholds, and the voting bar then applies. Regulation 23 combines an audit committee filter with a stronger abstention rule, but only for listed companies.

Critical analysis: the argument

A company that enters a related party transaction without the required approval still has remedies, but it depends largely on action after the event. Under Section 188, a contract entered into without the required Board or shareholder approval can be ratified within three months of its execution. If it is not ratified, it becomes voidable at the option of the Board or, as the case may be, the shareholders. Where the contract is with a related party of a director, or was authorised by another director, the directors concerned must indemnify the company against any loss. The company may also proceed against the director or employee who entered into the contract for recovery of its loss.

Section 188 also prescribes penalties. The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020 replaced the imprisonment and ₹25,000 to ₹5 lakh fine with a flat penalty of ₹25 lakh for listed companies and ₹5 lakh for others. It falls on the director or employee who entered into or authorised the contract.

Two features stand out. The contract is voidable, not void, so third parties dealing in good faith are not left exposed. And ratification allows an unapproved transaction to be cured after the fact, which weakens the preventive effect of the approval requirement.

Loopholes

The answer to the central question is therefore yes, and the more important issue is how much protection remains. Three features of the framework suggest it is less than the statute appears to promise.

First, the Board is the real gatekeeper. Most related party transactions never reach shareholders, because they fall below the thresholds or within the ordinary course exemption. In promoter-controlled companies, the Board that decides which transactions qualify is promoter-nominated, so the exemption is applied by the same persons it should constrain.

Second, the voting bar is narrow. It excludes only members who are themselves related parties, so other shareholders may still vote. It does not apply to private companies or where ninety per cent or more of members are related. The residual electorate is often small and passive.

Third, ratification blurs prevention. A transaction that misses approval can be corrected within three months by the same decision-makers who allowed it, so non-compliance carries a modest cost.

Regulation 23 shows that a stronger design is possible, since listed companies face audit committee scrutiny and a broader abstention rule. Unlisted promoter-controlled companies, however large, enjoy no equivalent protection.

Reform that can be made and Conclusion

Three reforms would address these weaknesses without burdening ordinary commercial dealings.

1. First, define "ordinary course of business", or have the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issue guidance on frequency, nature and scale.

2. Second, apply a majority-of-minority vote above a higher threshold to large unlisted companies, and take back the private company exemption from the voting bar for them. Section 177 already requires audit committee approval where a committee shall exist.

3. Third, require independent valuation for important transactions depending on the arm's length exemption.

In conclusion, a company can enter into a related party transaction without shareholder approval, and the Companies Act, 2013 permits this across a wide category of dealings. The law's preference for Board-level control is defensible where the Board is independent, but in promoter-controlled companies that condition generally fails. The exemptions, the limited reach of the voting bar and the availability of ratification together leave shareholders with less protection than the statute suggests. Specific reform, not a covering ban, would get back the balance.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a company enter into an RPT without shareholder approval?
Yes. Certain related party transactions are exempt from shareholder approval under Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. What is a Related Party Transaction (RPT)?
It is a transaction between a company and a related person or entity as defined under Section 2(76) of the Companies Act, 2013.

3. Which provision regulates RPTs?
Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013, regulates specified related party transactions.

4. Which transactions are covered under Section 188?
They include dealings in goods, property, leasing, services, offices or places of profit, and underwriting of securities.

5. What is the ordinary-course-of-business exemption?
Transactions conducted in the ordinary course of business and at arm's length are exempt from Section 188(1).

6. What is an arm's length transaction?
It is a transaction conducted on terms comparable to those between unrelated parties, without a conflict of interest.

7. Is Board approval always required?
No. Transactions exempt from Section 188(1) do not require Board approval under that provision merely because they involve a related party.

8. When is shareholder approval required?
Generally, when a covered transaction exceeds the applicable thresholds under Rule 15(3) of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014.

9. Can transactions below the prescribed thresholds proceed without shareholder approval?
Yes, subject to applicable Board approval, disclosure, and other regulatory requirements.

10. Are transactions between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary exempt?
Certain transactions are exempt from shareholder approval under Section 188, subject to the statutory conditions.

11. Can related parties vote on RPT resolutions?
Section 188 generally restricts related-party members from voting, subject to applicable exceptions.

12. What additional rules apply to listed companies?
Regulation 23 of the SEBI LODR Regulations, 2015, imposes additional approval and disclosure requirements.

13. What is the role of the audit committee?
Where applicable, it reviews and approves related party transactions under Section 177 and relevant SEBI regulations.

14. What happens if required approval is not obtained?
The transaction may be ratified within three months. Otherwise, it may become voidable under Section 188(3).

15. What penalties apply for violating Section 188?
Section 188(5) prescribes a penalty of ₹25 lakh for listed companies and ₹5 lakh for other companies.

16. Why are RPTs risky in promoter-controlled companies?
Promoter influence over the Board may weaken independent scrutiny and expose minority shareholders to conflicts of interest.

17. What are the main loopholes in the framework?
Unclear ordinary-course criteria, limited shareholder participation, and post-transaction ratification may weaken safeguards.

18. How can RPT regulation be improved?
Clearer definitions, stronger minority shareholder voting rights, and independent valuations could improve accountability.

19. Why do listed companies face stricter requirements?
SEBI regulations impose additional safeguards to protect investors and strengthen corporate governance.

20. What is the central conclusion?
RPTs can proceed without shareholder approval where legally permitted, but adequate safeguards are necessary to prevent misuse.

Key Takeaways

1. Section 188: Governs specified related party transactions.

2. Section 2(76): Defines related parties.

3. Ordinary course and arm's length: Transactions satisfying both conditions fall outside Section 188(1).

4. Board approval: Generally required for transactions covered by Section 188, subject to exceptions.

5. Shareholder approval: Generally required when applicable statutory thresholds are exceeded.

6. Listed companies: Face additional requirements under SEBI LODR Regulation 23.

7. Non-compliance: May result in ratification requirements, voidability, and penalties.

8. Governance risk: Promoter control can weaken independent oversight.

9. Minority protection: Stronger safeguards may be necessary for significant transactions.

10. Reform: Clearer standards and independent scrutiny can improve accountability
    
    

© 2025. All rights reserved.