Companies Act

Subscribe to Companies Act via RSS
Buy-back of shares: Will recent changes in the tax laws end the party?

Rationale for Buy-Back Provisions

A cardinal principle of company law, incorporated in Section 67 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”), prohibits the purchase by the Company of its own securities for the protection of creditors.  Section 68 is an exception to this general rule; hence, it starts with a non obstante clause laying down several conditions and restrictions for the companies undertaking a buy-back of its shares, primarily with a view to protect the creditors.Continue Reading Buy-back of shares: Will recent changes in the tax laws end the party?

NCLT rejects a scheme of merger citing public interest concerns

Introduction

In a recent case, the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) rejected a scheme of merger of three related entities on the ground that it was against public interest. Unlike the other cases of arrangements and schemes where the NCLT focused on the technical compliance of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”), in the instant case, the NCLT, in addition to analysing the scheme and verifying its satisfaction of the technical requirements, also went through the facts presented and the reports submitted by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) and the Income Tax Department (“ITD”), who had carried out their separate investigations. The trend of recent decisions appears to show that the NCLT is not just mechanically sanctioning schemes of merger but is also going beyond the facts provided and reviewing them holistically.Continue Reading NCLT rejects a scheme of merger citing public interest concerns

Managerial Remuneration – Should Promoters Be Disenfranchised?

Historical Context

The Government of India’s socialistic approach towards controlling managerial remuneration between 1960s and 1990s has been a painful chapter in the history of India’s company law. While the restriction applied only to those on the board of directors, the limits the then Department of Company Affairs had prescribed in its administrative guidelines under the Companies Act, 1956 in November 1969 was as low as INR 7,500 per month and further reduced to INR 5000 per month years later. Any payment beyond those limits required the Central Government’s approval, which was also a very cumbersome and time-consuming process. This led to the unhealthy practice of compensating Managing Directors and Executive Directors (“MD/EDs”) with cash reimbursements and many other inappropriate methods. Some MDs/ EDs also stepped down from the board to accept positions one level below the board. They were designated as presidents and vice presidents despite performing the role of the Managing Director.Continue Reading Managerial Remuneration – Should Promoters Be Disenfranchised?

Ultimate parent’s professional CEO a Significant Beneficial Owner: Do companies have to re-evaluate their corporate approval process and reporting line structures?

Background

The genesis of the concept of ‘significant beneficial ownership’ under Indian law can be traced to the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) recommendations on issues pertaining to ‘transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and arrangements’. Set up in 1989, the FATF is a global inter-governmental body, now serving as a watchdog for global money laundering and terrorist financing. Continue Reading Ultimate parent’s professional CEO a Significant Beneficial Owner: Do companies have to re-evaluate their corporate approval process and reporting line structures?

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 for tribunal system and for the evolution of the system of administrative adjudication in India.Continue Reading Administrative Adjudication under the Companies Act – Need for a relook at appeal provisions

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