Companies Act 2013

CHAIRMAN OR MANAGING DIRECTOR SEBI Regulation

Section 203(1) of the Companies Act states that an individual shall not be appointed or reappointed as the chairperson, of the company as well as the managing director (MD) or the chief executive officer (CEO) at the same time, unless the articles of the company provides otherwise or the company does not carry on multiple businesses. Further, this restriction is not applicable to certain specified class of companies engaged in multiple businesses and which have appointed one or more CEOs for each such business.
Continue Reading Chairman or Managing Director? – Eenie Meenie Miney Mo

Cross-border demergers – lack of legislative intent?

In the matter of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, the Ahmedabad bench of the NCLT has ruled that Section 234 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the FEMA Cross Border Merger Regulations, 2018, do not permit cross-border demergers. Sun Pharma sought to demerge two of its investment undertakings in India into two overseas resulting companies, based in the Netherlands and the US. Being a listed entity, it obtained prior approval of SEBI through the relevant stock exchanges and the requisite corporate consents of its shareholders and creditors. The RBI granted its implied deemed approval by stating that the demerged company is required to abide by the applicable rules and regulations, which it had undertaken that it would. None of the other stakeholders to whom notices were issued by the tribunal, including the Registrar of Companies (ROC), objected to the demerger on the ground that it was not permitted by law.
Continue Reading Cross-border Demergers – Lack of Legislative Intent?

New Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO) rules - Companies Act - Implementation Challenges

India is yet to hit its stride in dealing with Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO) rules introduced by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017. The SBO rules have its origin in the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to its member countries, to make suitable changes in the national legislation to find out individuals, who ultimately own significant beneficial shareholding in the reporting company. There remains a large degree of uncertainty and confusion around the new norms, and their practical impact, as explored below.

Sections 89(10) and 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) were introduced on the recommendations of the Company Law Committee (CLC) in its Report dated February 1, 2016. The CLC noted that complex structures and chains of corporate vehicles are used to hide the real owners behind the transactions made using those structures.
Continue Reading New SBO Rules – Implementation Challenges

Decriminalising Companies Act Offences

Via the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2019, recommendations of the Committee to Review Offences under the Companies Act, 2013 (Committee) to re-categorise 16 out of 81 compoundable offences under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) as civil liabilities were accepted. In a move to further relax the provisions, the Government has constituted a Company Law Committee to review aspects of criminalization in the remaining compoundable and non-compoundable offences under the Act.[1]
Continue Reading Decriminalising Companies Act Offences – Striking a Balance Between Ease of Doing Business and Corporate Governance

Is Liquidation Irreversible - Schemes of Compromise in Liquidation

The 2005 Report of the Expert Committee on Company Law (JJ Irani Committee Report) had noted that an effective insolvency law:

“should strike a balance between rehabilitation and liquidation. It should provide an opportunity for genuine effort to explore restructuring/ rehabilitation of potentially viable businesses with consensus of stakeholders reasonably arrived at. Where revival / rehabilitation is demonstrated as not being feasible, winding up should be resorted to.

Where circumstances justify, the process should allow for easy conversion of proceedings from one procedure to another. This will provide opportunity to businesses in liquidation to turnaround wherever possible. Similarly, conversion to liquidation might be appropriate even after a rehabilitation plan has been approved if such a plan was procured by fraud or the plan can no longer be implemented”.
Continue Reading Is Liquidation Irreversible? Schemes of Compromise or Arrangement for Companies in Liquidation

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

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

Share Transfers Can the Company Say No

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?