Skip to main content

Clarification relating to incorporation of a company i.e. company Incorporated outside India

General Circular No.19/2014
No. 1/4/2013-CL-V 
Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs
5th Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhavan, Dr R.P. Road, 
New Delhi 
Dated12 June, 2014
To
All Regional Directors,
All Registrars of Companies,
All Stakeholders.
Subject: Clarifications on Rules prescribed under the Companies Act, 2013 - Matters relating to share capital and debentures- reg.

Sir,
Government has received representations from Industry Chambers, Professional Institutes and other stakeholders seeking clarifications on matters relating to ‘share capital and debentures’ under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) read with relevant rules, which have come into force with effect from 1st April, 2014. The representations have been examined and clarifications on the following points are hereby given
(i) Share Transfer Forms executed before 1st April, 2014:- In view of prescription of new Securities Transfer Form as per Form SH-4 with effect from 1st April, 2014, the companies and other stakeholders have sought clarity with regard to Share Transfer Forms executed before 1st April, 2014 as per earlier Form 7B but which are yet to be accepted/registered by companies.
The matter has been examined and it is clarified that since transaction relating to transfer of shares is a contract between two or more persons/shareholders, any share transfer form executed before 1st April, 2014 and submitted to the company concerned within the period prescribed under relevant section of the Companies Act, 1956 needs to be accepted by the companies for registration of transfers. In case any such share transfer form, executed prior to 1st April, 2014, is not submitted within the prescribed period under the Companies Act, 1956, the concerned company may get itself satisfied suitably with regard to justification of delay in submission etc. In case a company decides not to accept the share transfer form, it shall convey the reasons for such non-acceptance within time provided under section 56(4)(c) of the Act.
(ii) Delegation of powers by board under rule 6(2)(a): Clarification has been
sought whether the powers of the Board provided under rule 6(2) (a) of Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 with regard to issue of duplicate share certificates can be exercised by a Committee of Directors.
The matter has been examined in light of the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly sections 179 & 180 and regulation 71 of Table “F” of Schedule I and it is clarified that a committee of directors may exercise such powers, subject to any regulations imposed by the Board in this regard.
This issues with the approval of the competent authority.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
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