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

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

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...
Post a Comment
Read more