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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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