There isn’t a specific “list” of business items that are inherently restricted from being transacted via video conferencing in Indian law. Instead, whether a particular transaction can be fully conducted through video conferencing depends on the nature of the transaction and any statutory or regulatory requirements that may mandate physical presence or original documentation. Here’s a breakdown:

1. General Acceptance of Video Conferencing

• Modern Legal Framework:
  Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, electronic records and digital signatures are legally recognized. This means that many business transactions—such as board meetings, contract negotiations, and even resolutions—can be effectively conducted via video conferencing if the necessary electronic safeguards (like digital signatures) are in place.

• Corporate Meetings:
  The Companies Act, 2013 permits board and general meetings to be held by video conferencing or other audio-visual means, provided that the mode of participation is clearly defined and the quorum requirements are met.

2. Situations Where Physical Interaction May Still Be Required

While video conferencing is widely accepted, certain transactions or business items may not be fully completed remotely due to statutory or practical requirements, for example:

• Original Documentation & Notarization:
  Transactions that require the submission of original documents (such as certain notarized agreements or deeds) may not be completely transacted via video conferencing.

• Physical Verification:
  Transactions that necessitate on-site inspection (for example, the physical inspection of goods in a property transfer or manufacturing process) might require a physical presence.

• Regulatory Requirements:
  Specific sectors (like certain banking or real estate transactions) may have guidelines or regulations that mandate physical verification or in-person interaction, despite the general acceptance of digital processes.

3. Practical Considerations

• Digital Signatures & Electronic Records:
  With the advent of digital signatures and secure electronic record systems, many formalities once tied to physical presence have been relaxed.

• Sector-Specific Norms:
  Different regulatory bodies may impose their own requirements. For example, while corporate board meetings are fully acceptable over video conferencing, some government or regulatory approvals might still require a physical submission of documents or signatures.

4. Conclusion

There is no blanket restriction in Indian law that categorically excludes any “business item” from being transacted via video conferencing. Instead, the acceptability of using video conferencing depends on:

• The statutory framework (e.g., Companies Act, 2013 and Information Technology Act, 2000),

• Regulatory requirements of the specific sector, and

• Practical necessities such as the need for original documentation or physical verification.

In essence, if the transaction can be legally supported by electronic records and digital processes, video conferencing is generally acceptable. However, where the law mandates physical presence or original documents (for instance, certain notarizations or inspections), those specific items would still need to be handled in person.

Directors participating via video conferencing are required to have their attendance recorded in the attendance register, but they need not physically sign the register at the meeting. Instead, the process can be adapted as follows:

1. Electronic or Digital Signature:
   Since electronic signatures are legally recognized under the IT Act, directors can affix their digital signatures on an electronic attendance register. This ensures that their participation is authenticated without needing physical presence.

2. Post-Meeting Physical Signature:
   Alternatively, the company may circulate the attendance register after the meeting, allowing remote directors to print, sign, and return a scanned copy for record-keeping. This method also serves to authenticate their attendance.

3. Recording Details in Minutes:
   Regardless of the method used, the minutes of the meeting should clearly state the names of the directors who participated via video conferencing, along with the time of joining and leaving the meeting.

4. Compliance with Companies Act and Rules:
   The Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Meetings of Board) Rules, 2014 do not prescribe a specific format for signing the attendance register in the case of video conferencing. The key requirement is that a reliable and verifiable record of attendance is maintained.

Based on legal commentary and judicial interpretations, the vacation of office of a director for not attending board meetings under Section 167(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 has a prospective effect. This means:

• Effective Date:
  The director’s office is declared vacant from the date of the board resolution or decision, and the effect is limited to future board meetings.

• No Retroactive Impact:
  Actions taken by the director prior to the resolution remain valid. The non-attendance that triggered the resolution does not retrospectively invalidate decisions or the director’s prior acts.

• Practical Implication:
  The director ceases to be a member of the board only from the moment the resolution takes effect. Past participation or decisions made before the resolution are not affected.

Yes, an alternate director is required to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN) under Section 153 of the Companies Act, 2013. The requirement for a DIN applies to every person who is appointed as a director, and this includes alternate directors. Their role, though temporary, is still that of a director under the Act, and therefore they must secure a DIN before they can effectively perform their duties on the board.

Under Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013, a director’s resignation becomes effective on the date the company receives the resignation notice, unless the notice specifies a later effective date. This means that once the director submits his resignation in writing to the company, his office is considered vacated from the receipt date (or the date stated in the notice) regardless of whether the company subsequently communicates the resignation to the Registrar of Companies.

For instance, if a director submits his resignation via email or physical notice on April 1, and no later date is mentioned, his resignation is effective from April 1. If a later effective date is mentioned in the notice, then his resignation will take effect on that specified date.