Ministry of Corporate Affairs amended the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 recently. The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) 2nd Amendment Rules, 2017, was published and come into force on 20th September 2017. These amendment permit, in case of specified private companies, to accept deposit without any maximum limits.
The Patron Government of ease of doing business was earlier considered not favourable for corporate governance. After “successful” demonetization, government looking for all possible measure it seems necessary even though earlier not much liked by it. The enforcement of the provision of limiting layers of subsidiaries is one such law. Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 20th September 2017 notified Proviso to clause (87) of section 2 and –.
Many years ago one Hindu priest told me, those worshipping Laxmi ji (goddess of wealth) before without satisfying Ganesh Ji (god of goodness) may not get good wealth. We need to follow established a procedure to get the desired result. Without understanding utility of Form DIR – 10, its use may not give the desired result. Here, we will have a discussion.
Posted in Chapter XI - CA2013, Chapter XIX -CA2013, Chapter XVIII - CA2013
Tagged Annual Accounts, Annual Filing, Annual Returns, Disqualified Director, National Company Law Tribunal, Registrar of Companies, Removal of Name, Restoration of Companies, Shell Companies, Strike – off companies, Winding Up
Compliance way or Confine way! The Government made it clear. Directors who were on a long-term picnic after removal of names of their “shell companies” are now offered sleepless nights. I appreciate.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued two important lists in this regard –
Posted in Chapter IX - CA2013, Chapter XI - CA2013, Chapter XVIII - CA2013, Chapter XXIX - CA2013, Companies Act 2013
Tagged Annual Accounts, Annual Filing, Annual Returns, Disqualified Director, National Company Law Tribunal, Registrar of Companies, Removal of Name, Restoration of Companies, Shell Companies, Strike – off companies, Winding Up
The term, “Arrest”, though considered alien to corporate jurisprudence, occurs five times in Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 and once in section heading of Section 301. Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 24th August 2017 notified sub – section 8 to sub – section 10 of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Arrests in connection with Investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office) Rules, 2017.
In post “Technical Fault in issuance of Secretarial Standards” posted long ago, I humbly made certain observations on notifications of two Secretarial Standards which was approved by Central Government and specified by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI). A surprise notification of withdrawal published on 17th august 2017 come in support of my prima facie views. This withdrawal is effective with effect from 30th September 2017. Here, a discussion.
[The law stated in this post is valid from 27th July 2017 with an update made in this post with effect from 6th March 2019]
On 27th July 2017, Ministry of Corporate Affairs published a notification in Official Gazette of India amending the rules relating to shifting of registered office of a company from jurisdiction of its present registrar of companies to another registrar of companies. The Companies (Incorporation) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 came into effect from the date of publication. In this post, we will discuss the shifting of registered office of a company to another state or the union territory.
On 27th July 2017, Ministry of Corporate Affairs published a notification in Official Gazette of India amending the rules relating to shifting of registered office of a company from jurisdiction of its present registrar of companies to another registrar of companies. The Companies (Incorporation) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 came into effect from date of publication. In present post, we will discuss first aspect of such shifting of registered office – shifting within a state but from one registrar of companies to another registrar of companies.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs recently amended the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 by notification of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2017 on 5th July 2017. A related amendment in the Companies (meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014 was also made by notification of the Companies (meetings of Board and its Powers) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 for which published notification copy is yet not available.
Posted in Chapter XI - CA2013, Chapter XII - CA2013, Companies Act 2013
Tagged Board of Directors, Committee of Board, Independent Director, Meeting through Audio Visual Means, Noting of dissent, Powers of Board, the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules 2017, the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014, the Companies (meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules 2014, the Companies (meetings of Board and its Powers) Second Amendment Rules 2017
The National Company Law Tribunal (Amendment) Rules, 2017 notified on 6th July 2017 which came into force in same date inserted Rule 87A the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. In this post, we will discuss newly inserted rules with brief background.
Posted in Chapter XVIII - CA2013, Companies Act 2013
Tagged MCA21, Ministry of corporate affairs, National Company Law Tribunal, National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016, NCLT, Registrar of Companies, Removal of Name, Rule 87A, The Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules 2016, The National Company Law Tribunal (Amendment) Rules 2017
Finally government tries to come out of Sahara Blues. Government earlier was in pressure to put corporate governance in place among private companies and tried well. Thereafter, industry lobby (read as vested interests among “promoters” and “professionals”) started pleaded mercy for all “otherwise honest players”.
Government initiated it journey with exemption notifications and now bring this amendment rules.
The Companies (Audit and Auditors) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 is interesting in more than one way. Statistically, this exemption will benefit only selected big players among private companies in India and their auditors.
Section 139(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 reads, “No listed company or a company belonging to such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed, shall appoint or re-appoint—
(a) an individual as auditor for more than one term of five consecutive years; and
(b) an audit firm as auditor for more than two terms of five consecutive years.”
Rule 5 of the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules 2014 before present amendments reads, “for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 139, the class of companies shall mean the following classes of companies excluding one person companies and small companies:-
(a) all unlisted public companies having paid up share capital of rupees ten crore or more;
(b) all private limited companies having paid up share capital of rupees twenty crore or more;
(c) all companies having paid up share capital of below threshold limit mentioned in (a) and (b) above, but having public borrowings from financial institutions, banks or public deposits of rupees fifty crores or more.”
Now, the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Second Amendment Rules, 2017, amend clause (b) of rule 5. The amendment rules reads, “in the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014, in rule 5, in clause (b), for the word “twenty”, the word “fifty” shall be substituted.
This amendment rules increase threshold limit for rotation of auditors for private companies by a good 150%.
As number of companies and auditors is not much, it may not affect stakeholders significantly but our commitment towards corporate governance.
Posted in Chapter X - CA2013, Companies Act 2013, CorpGov, Governance and Responsibility
Tagged Audit Committee, Auditor, Auditor Rotation, Companies Act 2013, Corporate Law, India, Ministry of corporate affairs, The Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules 2014, the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Second Amendment Rules 2017
Now, Ministry of Corporate Affairs introduced relatively easy and online e – form for surrendering director identification.
Application for removal of the name of the companies from the register of companies maintained by Company registrars has legal roots in Subsection (2) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 as discussed earlier here. Rule 4 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 deals with its procedural aspects. We will discuss Rule 4 in this post.
[Law stated in this post was valid from 26 December 2016 to 9 May 2019. For Law effective from 10 May 2019, visit here.
In earlier post here, we discussed law relating to suo-motu removal of name of company from the register of companies of the Registrar of companies. Recently, Registrar of Companies posted strike off notices in bulk of companies seems eligible for suo-motu strike off. When Government is claiming it a strike on shell companies, such notices received mixed reaction. Public notices are also published by almost all Registrar of Companies. One can access these public notices here.
Suo-motu removal of name of the companies from the register of companies maintained by Company registrars is legal roots in Sub – section (1) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 as discussed earlier here in its original form and its amendment by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 as discusses thereafter. Rule 3 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 deals with its procedural aspects. We will discuss Rule 3 in this post.
Ministry of corporate affairs inserted a clause (d) in rule 11 of the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014. The Companies (Audit and Auditors) Amendment Rules, 2017 was published in official gazette on 30th March 2017 and came into force from that date.
Bye – Bye Digital Signature Certificates!!
Inter – ministerial task force on secured authentication of legal documents actively discussing retina signatures which next logical step after introduction of biometric identification system in India. Indian mainstream media undermined these reports amid its stir on recent development in Uttar Pradesh.
Under critically proactive leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi an inter-ministerial task force was formed just after demonetization to consider digital cash, digital contracts and digitization of legal and court documents. The task force includes highly places officers of Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Information Technology, Unique Identification Authority of India, Ministry of Health & Family welfare. Highly placed sources suggest that a prime intelligence agency of nation is also involved and getting help from an agency of a friendly foreign nation.
Retina signature is a unique technique developed by a research group consist of countries premier medical colleges and information technology universities. This is quite advance technique user shall sign just showing his retina to camera attached to his laptop, mobile or desktop. This futuristic system shall replace token based digital signature certificate and can be used anytime anywhere by anybody. Though, it will be restricted presently for human need, this technique is so advance that it can be even be used by advance animals using their retina. Retina signature will eradicate need for renewal of digital signature certificates. This technology provides lifelong free signatures subject to good health and maintenance of retina. Any kind of file type may be signed using retina signature.
Retina is third and inner coat of eye which is a light-sensitive layer of tissue. The unique structure of the blood vessels in the retina has been used for biometric identification. Changes in the retinal microcirculation are seen with aging, exposure to air pollution and may indicate cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension and atherosclerosis.
In proposed methodology, a user shall place his eyes before camera of his mobile or laptop when a document to be signed should be opened before him on same device. It is also possible to sign a documents placed in another device. The retina signature shall capture bio-metrics of retina, system time, internet protocol address and geo-positioning of signatory. Once, signed there shall be no removal of signature from the documents shall be possible unless authorized by competent authority, which shall be a civil judge.
As usual, human right activists are planning to oppose the move. Activists argue that scrupulous elements and police authorities may get retina signature using force and other means. However, government authority denies any such possibilities. The task force working on modalities to make it happened in case blind, mentally challenged and otherwise unhealthy people.
A copy of relevant study document may be assessed here on or after 1st April.
UPDATE – Please visit
https://aishmghrana.me/2017/03/31/updated-index-of-company-law-posts/ updated as on 31st March 2017 and any later version given in sticky post regarding index update on home page.
This post archived for valuable comments made by readers. This blog is thankful to all its readers.
Posted in Companies Act 2013
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
AishMGhrana 