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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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

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