Skip to main content

Companies Bill 2012 - Salient features


After 7 long years of deliberation at the government level and another 5 years at the parliamentary stage, the Lok Shabha has finally approved the Companies Bill 2011, in a bid to amend the 5 decade old Companies Act 1956. It still needs to be approved by Rajya Shabha.

The government has tried plug loop holes and streamline the act to some extent.

Structural difference:-

 Companies Act 1956
 Companies Bill 2011
  •  13 parts
  • 750 + sections
  • 15 schedules
  •  29 chapters
  • 470 clauses or sections
  • 7 schedules

Among the significant changes brought in are:-

Clause 2) Changes in definitions:-
  • 'Abridged Prospectus' - Now stands as specified by SEBI
  • New concept of  'Associate Company'
  • Concept of  'Interested Director' clarified
  • New concept of  'Key managerial personnel' - which includes the CEO, CFO, Company Secretory, Whole time director, etc. who are to be mandatorily appointed and considered an officer of the company by default.
  • New concept of  'One person company' - Where only one person is a member
  • 'Financial Year' - Now means 31st March for all companies. All existing companies to align their financial year with 2 years
  • 'Small company' - Now means companies other than public companies having:-
    • Paid-up capital between 50 laks to 5 crore rupees
    • Turnover between 2 to 20 crores
    • Will have less stringent regulations
  • 'Private company' - can now have 200 members (earlier 50)
  • 'Promoter' - further clarification provided
  • 'Private placement' - further clarification provided
  • 'Service of documents' - Can now be done by speed post, courier and electronically also (Clause 20)

Other important changes:-
1.     Maximum number of directors increased to 15
2.     At least one director to stay in India for not less than 182 days
3.     Concept of 'Independent Directors' introduced. 1/3rd of the directors to be independent directors
4.     Specific companies to have at least one woman director
5.     Min. 7 days advance notice for board meeting (for every company)
6.     Directors not be hold directorship in more than 15 companies
7.     Companies with more than 1000 share/debenture/deposit/other security holders to have 'Stakeholders Relationship Committee'
8.     Mandatory rotation of auditors after every 5 years (brought in after the Satyam scandal)
9.     Government to constitute National Financial Reporting Authority to oversee audits and compliance
10. Only Banking and NBFCs can accept deposit from public.
11. Valuation of a company's assets including shares, property, debetures, securities, networth or goodwill by experienced and registered valuers only
12. Corporate Social Responsibility made mandatory for companies having networth of at least Rs. 500 crores or turnover of Rs. 1000 crores or Net Profit of Rs. 5 crores and spend at least 2% of the average net profit of the last 3 years
13. In order to curb frauds being done to or with banks, the Clause 36 (earlier Sec 68) now includes criminal liability for fraudulently inducing any person to enter into an agreement with a bank or financial institution in order to avail credit facility.
14. Minimum rate of interest on inter-corporate loans to be the prevailing rate of interest on dated government securities.
15. Transfer of share and non-payment of dividend by listed companies or companies going for listing to be handled exclusively by SEBI
16. Government to establish 'Serious fraud investigation office'
17. 'Insider Trading' & 'Price Sensitive Information' specifically defined
18. Duty of companies to register charges created on properties or other assets or undertakings, tangible or otherwise here or outside India.
19. Tribunal can freeze assets of companies on inquiry and investigation
20. 'Fraud' has been specifically defined and various types of frauds, non-compliance and misrepresentation has been made non-cognizable and non-bailable offences.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more