Banning of Unregulated Schemes Ordinance, 2019

In the aftermath of the Saradha scam, the Standing Committee of Finance (Committee) in its 21st report dated September 21, 2015 suggested the introduction of a comprehensive regulatory framework governing all entities engaged in activities involving acceptance of deposits from the public. While making this recommendation, the Committee observed that certain entities were engaged in financial as well as non-financial activities and therefore, it was difficult to identify the appropriate regulator for such entities. Such entities fall under the jurisdiction of various regulatory bodies and in spite of overlapping regulations, several such entities were not regulated by any regulator.

In view of the suggestions of the Committee, a high level Inter-Ministerial Group (Group) was formulated for identifying gaps in the existing regulatory framework. The Group suggested the enactment of a comprehensive central act to criminalise the solicitation, promotion, acceptance and/or operation of ‘unregulated deposit schemes’. In line with the recommendations of the Committee and the Group, the Banning of Unregulated Schemes Ordinance, 2019 (Ordinance) was promulgated on February 21, 2019. Continue Reading The Banning of Unregulated Schemes Ordinance, 2019

Contract Enforcement Laws

The Ease of Doing Business rankings released annually by the World Bank currently ranks India at 163 in Enforcing Contracts.[1] The importance placed by the Modi Government on these, and India’s overall dismal performance has forced the government to take several measures, especially in the field of enforcement of contracts.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Contract Act) and the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act) are the two primary legislations governing the enforcement of contracts between parties. While the Contract Act lays down the general principles governing contracts and levy of damages for breach thereof, it also provides for an exception of awarding specific relief in the form of specific performance of contracts. Continue Reading Contract Enforcement – Ushering In an Era of Performance

Impact of the Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 on Registration of Charges

 

On November 2, 2018, the Ministry of Corporate affairs promulgated an ordinance[1] (the Ordinance) inter alia amending certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act). One of the amendments is for the purpose of reducing the extended timelines for filing a charge created by a company as per Section 77(1) of the Act upon payment of additional fees prescribed by the Registrar. Continue Reading Impact of the Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 on Registration of Charges

Changes in the Indian Companies Act

Recently, based on the recommendations of the Committee to Review Offences under the Companies Act, 2013 (Committee), the Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 (Ordinance) was passed on November 2, 2018, to effect certain changes in the Companies Act, 2018 (CA 2013). Around the same time the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) also issued a notice, seeking comments/suggestions from stakeholders on additional amendments of an “urgent nature” that are required to strengthen the corporate governance and enforcement framework (Notice). This article discusses some of the key amendments proposed in the Notice, which would have far reaching impact if approved in their current form. Continue Reading Companies Act, 2013: More Changes in the Offing

Transfer of Proceedings from Courts to NCLT: The Calcutta High Court’s View

A question that has often come up since the Companies Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) came into force is how will proceedings ongoing before the High Courts be transferred to the National Companies Law Tribunal (NCLT)? Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act deals with transfer of “all proceedings” under the Companies Act, 1956[1] to the NCLT. For winding up proceedings, this provision states that only such proceedings relating to winding up, which are at a certain stage as prescribed by central Government, are to be transferred to the NCLT. Another part of this provision, meanwhile, deals with cases other than winding up proceedings, which may not be transferred to the NCLT.[2] A reading of all the various provisions leads to the conclusion that not all proceedings under the 1956 Act pending before the District Courts and High Courts are to be transferred to the NCLT. Continue Reading Transfer of Proceedings from Courts to NCLT: The Calcutta High Court’s View

Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 14 of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 are substantive provisions for regulating private placements by Indian companies. These provisions are, of course, in addition to applicable regulations prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) for listed companies. Recently, both Section 42 and Rule 14 have undergone amendments by way of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 and the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2018, respectively (the “Recent Amendments”). Continue Reading Recent Amendments to the Private Placement Guidelines – Revamp or Cosmetic?

Share transfer restrictions come in various shapes and sizes and in so far as they relate to shares of public companies, their validity has been a topic of hot debate. In several cases, Indian courts have considered and opined on the legality of contractual restrictions on the transfer of shares of public companies. The position in this regard now appears to be much clearer than before with changes also being introduced in the Companies Act, 2013 (CA 2013). However, one aspect of this debate that has hitherto gained lesser traction is the ability of a public company to refuse registration of share transfers pursuant to section 58(4) of the CA 2013.

Section 58(2) of CA 2013 states that the securities of any member in a public company are freely transferable, while under section 58(4) of CA 2013, it is open to the public company to refuse registration of the transfer of securities for a ‘sufficient cause’. To that extent, section 58(4) of CA 2013 can be read as a limited restriction on the free transfer permitted under section 58(2) of CA 2013. However, the statute does not provide any guidance on what would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ and leaves it open to the company itself to ascertain the same. Continue Reading Share Transfers: Can the Company Say No?