Skip to main content

MCA Updates: Clarification u/s 372A(3) of the Companies Act, 1956...prohibits lending of money to Bodies Corporate at a rate lower than the prevailing bank rate.


The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its General Circular No. 06/2013 dated 14.03.2013, has issued a clarification with respect to Section 372A (3) of the Companies Act, 1956 that prohibits lending of money to Bodies Corporate at a rate lower than the prevailing bank rate. 

The Union Budget 2013-14 allows the Central Government to raise Rs. 50,000 Crores in the form of Tax Free Bonds which carry a lower rate of interest (presently 6.75% to 7.5%) which is tax free under Sections 10(15) (iv)(h) of the Income Tax, 1961. Such a provision was also made in Budget 2012-13 but it received poor acceptance owing to restrictions posed by Section 372A (3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Ministry of Finance therefore drew the attention of MCA to the said section in order to remove bottlenecks in effective implementation of this provision. 


Keeping the current scenario in mind, MCA has clarified that the said Section will not be considered contravened if the effective yield or rate of return on tax free bonds is greater than the yield on prevailing bank rate. 


It is noteworthy that the Companies Bill 2012 has already taken care of the issue as the provision therein with reference to Loan and investment by company mentions:- 


186 (7) No loan shall be given under this section at a rate of interest lower than the prevailing yield of one year, three year, five year or ten year Government Security closest to the tenor of the loan.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more