Material Related Party Transaction Thresholds.
I. Meaning of “Material” Related Party Transaction
A Material Related Party Transaction is an RPT whose value exceeds prescribed quantitative thresholds, thereby triggering enhanced corporate governance safeguards, particularly mandatory shareholder approval and voting restrictions.
The concept of “materiality” ensures that transactions capable of materially affecting financial position or minority interests receive heightened scrutiny.
II. Statutory Framework
1. Companies Act, 2013
(a) Section 188(1)
Specifies categories of RPTs but does not define “material”. Materiality is determined through Rule 15 of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014.
(b) Rule 15 – Thresholds
Shareholders’ approval by ordinary resolution is required when transaction value exceeds prescribed limits and is not at arm’s length or not in ordinary course of business.
2. SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015
Regulation 23 – Listed Companies
SEBI introduces an independent concept of material RPT, which is stricter than the Companies Act.
III. Thresholds Under Companies Act, 2013 (Rule 15)
Transaction-Wise Thresholds
| Nature of Transaction | Threshold for Shareholder Approval |
|---|---|
| Sale, purchase, supply of goods | > 10% of turnover |
| Selling or buying property | > 10% of net worth |
| Leasing of property | > 10% of turnover or net worth |
| Availing/rendering services | > 10% of turnover |
| Appointment to office/place of profit | Monthly remuneration > ₹2.5 lakh |
| Underwriting securities | > 1% of net worth |
(Turnover and net worth as per last audited financial statements)
IV. Thresholds Under SEBI LODR (Listed Entities)
A. Definition of Material RPT
A transaction is material if:
Transaction value exceeds ₹1,000 crore or 10% of annual consolidated turnover, whichever is lower
B. Enhanced Scope
Includes cross-border RPTs
Includes transactions with subsidiaries
Includes subsequent modifications
V. Approval Consequences of Crossing Materiality Thresholds
| Stage | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Audit Committee | Mandatory prior approval |
| Board | Approval with abstention of interested directors |
| Shareholders | Mandatory approval (related parties abstain) |
| Disclosure | Stock exchange and annual report |
VI. Interaction Between Companies Act and SEBI LODR
For listed companies:
SEBI thresholds prevail due to stricter norms
For unlisted companies:
Companies Act thresholds apply
Compliance with one does not automatically ensure compliance with the other.
VII. Judicial Approach to Material RPT Thresholds
Courts examine:
Substance over form
Artificial splitting to avoid thresholds
Cumulative transaction value
Fairness and arm’s length pricing
Minority shareholder impact
VIII. Leading Case Laws (At Least 6)
1. Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd. (1981)
Held:
Transactions affecting minority interests require heightened scrutiny
Materiality judged by impact, not merely numerical thresholds
2. Dale & Carrington Investment (P) Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005)
Held:
Abuse of fiduciary power through related transactions constitutes oppression
Material benefit to insiders invalidates technical compliance
3. S.P. Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1965)
Held:
Courts may intervene where transactions are structured to defeat shareholder protections
Splitting transactions to avoid approvals is impermissible
4. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2021)
Held:
Governance thresholds and Board processes must be followed in substance
Failure to respect minority safeguards in material decisions attracts judicial scrutiny
5. V.S. Krishnan v. Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital Ltd. (2008)
Held:
Material related transactions must be transparent and fair
Formal approvals do not cure substantive unfairness
6. Nanalal Zaver v. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (1950)
Held:
Directors’ fiduciary obligations intensify in transactions involving control or material benefit
Materiality judged by effect on company governance
7. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. (2010)
Held:
Breach of internal thresholds and approval policies in material transactions exposes officers to liability
8. Globe Motors Ltd. v. Mehta Teja Singh & Co. (2017)
Held:
Interested directors’ participation vitiates approval of material RPTs
IX. Practical Issues and Compliance Risks
Artificial fragmentation of contracts
Misclassification as “ordinary course”
Ignoring consolidated turnover
Failure to aggregate related transactions
Delayed shareholder approvals
X. Best Practices for Corporates
Adopt conservative materiality thresholds
Aggregate transactions on rolling basis
Independent benchmarking
Prior legal and audit review
Continuous monitoring of limits
Clear documentation of arm’s length basis
XI. Conclusion
Material RPT thresholds operate as gatekeepers of minority protection. While statutes prescribe numerical limits, courts assess economic impact and fairness, not merely arithmetic compliance. Companies must treat materiality as a governance concept, not a compliance workaround.
RELATED Blog
comments