Administrative Adjudication under the Companies Act – Need for a relook at appeal provisions

Constitutional Perspective

The Central Government recognised the importance of setting up tribunals outside the judicial system that would help alleviate the overburdened judicial machinery. In 1976, the Constitution of India (“Constitution”) was amended through the 42nd Amendment to add two new provisions to the Constitution, viz., Articles 323A and 323B. This change laid the foundation

Holding-Subsidiary Relationship – Legal & Regulatory Architecture

Background

Companies, as the business grows, operate through their subsidiaries for various reasons such as flexibility in operation of different units, expansion in different geographies, etc. While subsidiary is an entity over which the wholly owned subsidiary has control, the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”) recognises subsidiary companies as a separate legal entity.Continue Reading Holding-Subsidiary Relationship – Legal & Regulatory Architecture

When is a Holding Company liable for the acts and omissions of its Subsidiary? A Jurisprudential Analysis

The Companies Act in India and jurisdictions all over the world have statutorily recognised subsidiaries as a separate legal entity. Section 2(87)[1] of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”), defines “subsidiary company” or “subsidiary” as a company in which the holding company controls the composition of the Board of Directors; or exercises or controls more than one-half of the total voting power either on its own or together with one or more of its subsidiary companies.Continue Reading When is a Holding Company liable for the acts and omissions of its Subsidiary? A Jurisprudential Analysis

Employer safeguards in the wake of ‘Loud Quitting’

In the ever-evolving landscape of professional dynamics, a recent trend has emerged where employees have been publicly expressing their dissatisfaction and grievances with their employers after resigning from their jobs, often through social media platforms. This phenomenon has been termed as ‘loud quitting’. This practice marks a stark shift from the previous subtle ways that employees chose to express dissatisfaction about their work environments. Continue Reading Employer safeguards in the wake of ‘Loud Quitting’

Substantial Issues in Defining “Substantially the Whole of the Undertaking”

Section 180(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 (“2013 Act”) requires a company to obtain prior approval by a special resolution to sell, lease or dispose of the whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking of the company or, when the company owns more than one undertaking, of the whole or substantially the whole of any of such  undertakings.Continue Reading Substantial Issues in Defining “Substantially the Whole of the Undertaking”

Key issues under Section 186 for a corporate lawyer

Legislative History of Section 186:

Granting of inter-corporate loans, making investments and provisions for guarantees was previously regulated by Sections 370 and 372 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the“1956 Act”), which mandated prior Central Government approval (along with compliance with certain other stringent guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs) for giving loans/ guarantee/ security in excess of the limits prescribed under the said sections. This position was subsequently changed with the enactment of Section 372A of the 1956 Act (by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1999), which replaced the need to obtain prior government approval with a self-regulatory mechanism, which mandated prior shareholder approval by a special resolution before granting inter-corporate loans, guarantees or securities beyond the limits prescribed therein..Continue Reading Key issues under Section 186 for a corporate lawyer

In the judgment of Union of India and Another vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP & Another[1], the Supreme Court has enunciated and cleared the law pertaining to the removal and resignation of a statutory auditor vis-à-vis the proceedings initiated under Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Act and interpreted it as “neither discriminatory, arbitrary and/or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India”. The Supreme Court clarified that the resignation of an auditor after filing an application under Section 140(5) of the Act does not automatically terminate the proceedings initiated under this Section.Continue Reading Supreme Court Sets the Bar Too High for the Statutory Auditors

Employee Provident Fund EPF

In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). The primary reason for various interpretations of how PF dues are treated under the Code ensues from the overlapping nature of certain provisions within the Code itself, the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) and the Companies Act, 2013. The article traces the judicial trend in treatment of EPF dues under the code and analyses the reasoning put forth by various adjudicating authorities in deciding on the rights of the employees of the corporate debtor.Continue Reading Treatment of Employees Provident Fund Dues under the IBC