Section 188 of Companies Act 2013 Explained: Related Party Transactions

Section 188 of Companies Act 2013 Explained: Related Party Transactions

Every growing company eventually deals with a related party — a promoter's other business, a director's relative, or a group company — and that is exactly where Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 steps in. It sets out when a company needs board approval, when it needs shareholder approval, and when a transaction must be priced at arm's length before it can go through.

For founders and finance teams, Section 188 is one of the most commonly triggered compliance sections because related-party dealings are routine in Indian business groups. Getting the approvals and disclosures wrong can lead to the transaction being voidable and can expose directors to penalties, so understanding the section clearly is important.

What Section 188 says

Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with contracts or arrangements a company enters into with a "related party" as defined under Section 2(76) of the Act. The provision generally requires that any such contract or arrangement — covering matters like sale, purchase or supply of goods or materials, leasing of property, appointment of agents, or related services — be approved by the Board of Directors at a duly convened board meeting.

Where the transaction crosses certain prescribed thresholds (in terms of paid-up capital, turnover, or transaction value, as notified under the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules), the law generally also requires prior approval of the company's shareholders by way of an ordinary resolution, subject to conditions on interested members not voting. Note that exact monetary thresholds and the list of covered transaction types are prescribed through rules and have been amended over time, so companies should always verify the current threshold figures applicable to their transaction before proceeding, rather than relying on older or approximate numbers.

Importantly, the proviso to Section 188 generally exempts transactions that are entered into in the "ordinary course of business" and are on an "arm's length basis" from the requirement of prior approval (though disclosure obligations may still apply). What counts as "arm's length" and "ordinary course" is often a matter of judgment and has been the subject of interpretation, so companies are well advised to document their reasoning and, where the transaction is significant, obtain independent valuation or benchmarking support.

Who it applies to

Section 188 applies to all companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 — private limited companies, public limited companies, and, with some modifications, Section 8 companies — that enter into contracts or arrangements with related parties. A "related party" broadly includes directors, key managerial personnel (KMP), their relatives, other companies where a director or KMP is also a director or holds a defined level of interest, holding-subsidiary-associate relationships, and other categories defined under Section 2(76).

The provision is particularly relevant for:

• Startups and private companies that route transactions through group entities or promoter-owned firms.
• Companies with common directors across multiple group entities.
• Listed companies, which face an additional, generally stricter layer of related-party transaction regulation under SEBI's Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR), on top of Section 188.
• Companies undergoing due diligence for funding, where investors specifically review related-party contracts for proper approvals.

Certain categories of transactions and, in some cases, certain classes of companies may have specific exemptions or modified requirements (for example, transactions between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary, subject to conditions) — these carve-outs should be checked against the current rules rather than assumed.

Key provisions

Some of the operative elements of Section 188 that companies should track include:

• Board approval requirement — related-party contracts generally require approval at a board meeting; approval by circular resolution or by a committee is generally not treated as a substitute unless conditions permit.
• Interested director restrictions — a director who is interested in the related-party contract is generally required not to participate in the discussion or vote on that specific agenda item, and in many cases must not even be counted for quorum on that item.
• Shareholder approval above thresholds — an ordinary resolution of members is generally required where the transaction value or nature crosses the prescribed limits; related members who are parties to the contract are typically restricted from voting on the resolution.
• Arm's length and ordinary course exemption — transactions genuinely in the ordinary course of business and at arm's length pricing are generally excluded from the prior-approval requirement, though good governance practice still calls for disclosure to the board.
• Disclosure in the Board's Report — particulars of contracts with related parties (in the prescribed form, generally referred to as Form AOC-2) are ordinarily required to be disclosed as part of the company's annual Board's Report.
• Register of contracts — companies are generally required to maintain a register recording particulars of contracts or arrangements with related parties, made available for inspection as prescribed.
• Ratification — where a related-party transaction is entered into without the required prior approval, the Act generally provides a route for ratification by the Board or shareholders within a defined period, failing which the contract may be voidable at the option of the Board.

Practical example

Consider a private limited company where the promoter also owns a separate proprietorship that supplies raw materials to the company. If this arrangement is priced the same way the company would price a purchase from any unrelated vendor, and it is a recurring, ordinary part of the business, it may potentially fall within the "ordinary course and arm's length" exemption — but the company should still document the comparison to market rates and record the transaction in its related-party register and disclosures.

Now suppose the same company decides to lease office premises from a director's relative at a rent that is meaningfully different from prevailing market rates, and the transaction value crosses the prescribed threshold. In that scenario, the company would typically need board approval first, with the interested director recused, and — if thresholds are triggered — a shareholder ordinary resolution as well, with interested members excluded from voting. Skipping this process would put the contract at risk of being treated as voidable and could expose the officers involved to penal consequences.

Compliance/filing implications

Practical compliance steps generally associated with Section 188 include:

• Identifying related parties correctly at the outset, since the definition under Section 2(76) is broader than just "family members" and includes corporate relationships.
• Placing related-party contracts on the board meeting agenda with adequate disclosure of the nature, terms, and rationale of the transaction.
• Assessing whether prescribed thresholds are crossed, which may require obtaining updated rule references rather than assuming figures from memory.
• Passing an ordinary resolution at a general meeting where required, ensuring related/interested members abstain from voting as mandated.
• Disclosing related-party transaction particulars in Form AOC-2 as an annexure to the Board's Report, filed along with the company's annual filings.
• Maintaining the statutory register of contracts with related parties.
• For listed entities, layering in the additional SEBI LODR requirements — including audit committee approval — which operate alongside, not instead of, Section 188.

Penalties (hedged)

Non-compliance with Section 188 can attract penal consequences for the company and the officers in default, and in more serious cases involving fraud, action under other provisions of the Act (including Section 447) could also be attracted. The exact quantum of fines or the nature of penalty (monetary penalty versus other consequence) has been subject to amendment — including a shift, for several company law provisions, from criminal prosecution to civil monetary penalties under recent reform cycles. Because penalty provisions and amounts are periodically revised, companies should verify the current penalty structure applicable to Section 188 defaults with a qualified professional or the latest bare act/rules before assuming any specific figure. Separately, a related-party contract entered into without the required approval can be treated as voidable at the option of the Board, and the director or employee responsible may be required to indemnify the company against any resulting loss.

Recent changes to note (hedge)

Related-party transaction norms have seen periodic refinement — both under the Companies Act framework (thresholds and forms notified under the Board and Powers Rules) and, separately, under SEBI's LODR for listed companies, which has tightened related-party transaction definitions, materiality thresholds, and audit committee/shareholder approval requirements in recent years. There has also been a broader legislative trend of decriminalising certain company law defaults into monetary penalties. Because these thresholds, forms, and penalty structures are amended from time to time, businesses should always confirm the current position — ideally with a professional — rather than relying on figures that may be outdated by the time this is read.

Common mistakes

• Assuming a transaction is automatically exempt because it is with a "regular vendor," without properly documenting that it is genuinely at arm's length.
• Not recognising less obvious related parties, such as a company where a KMP's relative holds a significant interest.
• Passing only a board resolution when the transaction value actually crosses the threshold requiring shareholder approval as well.
• Allowing an interested director to be counted in the quorum or to vote on the specific related-party agenda item.
• Failing to disclose related-party contracts in Form AOC-2 as part of the Board's Report, which is a common gap flagged during ROC scrutiny or funding due diligence.
• Treating one-time or unusual transactions with related parties as "ordinary course" without adequate justification.
• Ignoring the additional SEBI LODR layer once a company is listed, assuming Section 188 compliance alone is sufficient.

FAQ

What is a related party under Section 188?

A related party is defined broadly under Section 2(76) of the Companies Act and generally includes directors, key managerial personnel, their relatives, group and associate companies, and entities where such persons hold significant influence. The exact scope should be checked against the current definition for any specific transaction.

Does every related-party transaction need shareholder approval?

Not necessarily. Many related-party transactions only require board approval, and shareholder approval is generally triggered only when the transaction value or type crosses prescribed thresholds under the rules. Genuine arm's length, ordinary-course transactions may be exempt from prior approval altogether, subject to disclosure.

What does "arm's length" mean in this context?

It generally means the transaction is priced and structured as it would be between unrelated parties dealing at market terms, without either party enjoying an advantage due to the relationship. Since this is a factual determination, companies are advised to keep benchmarking or valuation evidence on file.

Can an interested director vote on a related-party resolution?

Generally, no — an interested director is expected to abstain from discussion and voting on that specific agenda item at the board level, and interested members are similarly restricted from voting at the shareholder level where a resolution is required.

What happens if a related-party transaction is not approved in time?

The contract can generally be treated as voidable at the option of the Board, and there is often a route to seek ratification within a prescribed period. Beyond that, the officers responsible may face penal consequences and could be required to indemnify the company for any loss.

Is Form AOC-2 mandatory for all companies?

Companies that have entered into related-party transactions not at arm's length, or transactions above prescribed thresholds even if at arm's length in some cases, are generally required to disclose particulars in Form AOC-2 as part of their Board's Report. The applicability nuances should be confirmed for each company's specific facts.

Do listed companies face additional related-party rules?

Yes. Listed companies must also comply with SEBI's LODR requirements on related-party transactions, which layer additional materiality thresholds, audit committee approval, and shareholder approval requirements on top of Section 188.

Is legal or professional help necessary for Section 188 compliance?

Given the interpretive elements around "arm's length" and "ordinary course," the periodically revised thresholds, and the documentation expected during audits or funding due diligence, most companies benefit from professional guidance to structure approvals correctly and avoid the transaction being challenged later.

Legal Suvidha handles this end-to-end — from identifying related parties and structuring the right board/shareholder approvals to preparing Form AOC-2 disclosures and maintaining statutory registers — so you stay compliant without getting lost in the interpretation questions.

Why Founders Choose Legal Suvidha

For 14 years we have taken founders end-to-end — from choosing the right structure and incorporating, to first-year compliance, funding readiness, and ongoing ROC/GST/tax filings — so you never have to switch providers as you grow.

• One team for the whole journey — start, launch, post-launch and every annual filing after.
• Fixed, all-inclusive pricing — professional plus government fees itemised, no hidden charges.
• A dedicated CA/CS who owns your case and does not disappear after payment.
• 6,000+ founders served, 4.9/5 rating, DPIIT-recognised, 100% online.

Talk to a Legal Suvidha expert today for a free consultation and an exact, transparent quote on WhatsApp (8130645164).