Sunday, 24 September 2017

Over 250 insolvency cases settled – By Mumbai Bench

 


 Banks have to examine the profitability of businesses to which loans are being granted


The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is beginning to show its effect on defauting borrowers who are preferring amicable resolution with creditors to facing legal proceedings.
 
Till date, over 25O cases have been settled under IBC by the Mumbai bench of the 
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) even before admission stage, according to Mukul Shrawat, judicial member, NCLT, in Mumbai.( A report from Business Standard)

The positive effect of IBC is being felt. The message is quite clear to borrowers — if they have taken debt, it has to be repaid. Many have preferred settlement with creditors even before admission of cases at the forum, Shrawat said in an “insolvency summit” here.
 
Shrawat said that earlier a “chalta hai” attitude — to keep pending payment of dues to lenders — was the norm. Now, the need to settle dues and close litigation is becoming clear. He blamed lack of due diligence before granting loans for the bad loans. Bankers often drew comfort by creating collateral security of property.
 
Banks have to examine the profitability of businesses to which loans are being granted. There is need to revise the checklist (norms) for carrying out due diligence to cure the menace of non-performing loans, he said.
 
“IBC is a new legislation. The roll-out of the code, till date, shows it will have a beneficial effect on the system. Yet, there could be concerns over day-to-day problems in its implementation. Insolvency professionals should form a nationwide organisation to take up such matters for early solutions,” he said.
 
The NCLT member also batted for a panel on the lines of the committee formed for the goods and services tax to expeditiously address problems.

Saturday, 23 September 2017


Dear Reader, There is vacancy of Company Secretary in Subhlakshmi Finance Pvt. Ltd. Kindly  go through for the details below:

Job Description
  • ·         Convening and servicing annual general meetings (AGM)/meetings (producing agendas, taking minutes; conveying decisions etc)
  • ·         Providing support to committees and working parties such as the Board of Directors etc
  • ·         Implementing procedural/administrative systems
  • ·         Handling correspondence before and after meetings
  • ·         Ensuring policies are kept current, are approved, and that company members are aware of their implications
  • ·         Writing reports
  • ·         Collating information
  • ·         Providing legal/financial advice during and outside of meetings


Location:- New Delhi

Experience:- Minimum 2 Years

Company Description :- Subhlakshmi is engaged to finance the “missing middle” and to cater to Small and Micro Enterprises in North India.

Friday, 22 September 2017

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2017
G.S.R. 1176(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to clause (87) of section 2, section 450 read with sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:—
1. Short title and Commencement.—(1) These rules may be called the Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette
2. Restriction on number of layers for certain classes of holding companies.—
(1) On and from the date of commencement of these rules, no company, other than a company belonging to a class specified in sub-rule (2), shall have more than two layers of subsidiaries:
Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule shall not affect a company from acquiring a company incorporated outside India with subsidiaries beyond two layers as per the laws of such country:


Provided further that for computing the number of layers under this rule, one layer which consists of one or more wholly owned subsidiary or subsidiaries shall not be taken into account.







(Interpretation and Suggestions: Before notifying this proviso there is restriction only in regard to layer of Investment Company as per section 186 of the Act.  Now after notification of this rule, A company shall not have more than two layers of subsidiaries but it does not restrict to acquire a company incorporated outside India with subsidiaries beyond two layers(that should be as per law of that country). If a company have 100 subsidiaries including wholly owned  subsidiary that all will consider as one layer. Let explain with help of chart.)
                                     

(2) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following classes of companies, namely:—
(a) a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);
(b) a non-banking financial company as defined in clause (f) of Section 45-I of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) which is registered with the Reserve Bank of India and considered as systematically important non-banking financial company by the Reserve Bank of India;
(c) an insurance company being a company which carries on the business of insurance in accordance with provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) and the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999);
(d) a Government company referred to in clause (45) of section 2 of the Act.
(Interpretation and Suggestions: Following Companies can have more than two layers of Subsidiaries:
1.      Banking Company
2.      NBFC
3.      Insurance Company
4.      Government Company
(3) The provisions of this rule shall not be in derogation of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 186 of the Act.
(Interpretation and Suggestions: The whole rule is for proviso of Sec- 2 Clause -87and not a relaxation from Section 186 (1). Section 186(1) restrict from having more than two layers of investment companies. Here investment company “means a company whose principal business is the acquisition of shares, debentures or other securities”
(4) Every company, other than a company referred to in sub-rule (2), existing on or before the commencement of these rules, which has number of layers of subsidiaries in excess of the layers specified in sub-rule (1) 
 (i) shall file, with the Registrar a return in Form CRL-1 disclosing the details specified therein, within a period of one hundred and fifty days from the date of publication of these rules in the Official Gazette;
(ii) shall not, after the date of commencement of these rules, have any additional layer of subsidiaries over and above the layers existing on such date; and
(iii) shall not, in case one or more layers are reduced by it subsequent to the commencement of these rules, have the number of layers beyond the number of layers it has after such reduction or maximum layers allowed in subrule (1), whichever is more.
(Interpretation and Suggestions: The Company who holds more layers of subsidiaries as specified in rule 1 after the commencement of these rules, such Companies shall file a return in Form CRL-1 with ROC with in 150days from the date of publication of rule in Gazette and shall not hold additional layer of subsidiaries over and above the layers existing on such date. Further in any case if holding company reduce its layer subsequent to commencement of these rules and after that even if have such number of layer more than the number of layer are per sub rule 1 than in such case that would be a maximum for it. Let explain with help of an example.

 

 Now in above Flow chart Company A has 4 Layers of subsidiaries b, c, d, e. Now subsequent to commencement of these rules and after that even Company A reduced the layer to 3 with b, c, d than A shall not have more layers of subsidiaries, for now is 3 or Maximum permissible as per rule 1 is 2, whichever is more i.e. 3.  
(5) If any company contravenes any provision of these rules the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and where the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day after the first during which such contravention continues.
(Interpretation and Suggestions: Any holding Company, Who have more than 2 layer of subsidiary company, then Holding company need to file Return in Form CRL-1, within period of 150 days(i.e.17/02/2018) from 20.09.2017, otherwise every Company and every officer in company who is in default shall be punishable with fine 10,000 Rs. and 1000 per day after 17/02/2018.)
Author
Qualified Company Secretary
Vikram Grover
Vgrover44@gmail.com

If you like this article then please follow and Subscribe so that you can get our updates in future ……..” freely





Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Author on the basis of relevant  provisions, rules, notification, circulars, orders, judgments and as per information prevailing at the time of this article. The author and Blog https://vgknowledgeupdate.blogspot.in hereby do not propose to provide any sort of professional advice/service through this article/write up. Moreover, appreciate that any reliance on such article will not be considered as advisory. Although , utmost care has been taken at time of writing up the article to mitigate the chances of mistake/ omission/ error by the Author. However, there is always room for some error or omissions. Therefore it is requested to readers to check at your own end and confirm from professional before acting on any of the information provided herein above by the Author. Author and the Blog is not responsible for any loss or damage happened (if any).   



Protected by Copyscape

Thursday, 21 September 2017


NCLAT to study London court order before further decision in McDonald's case:

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 21st September, 2017  said it would study London Court of International Arbitration’s (LCIA’s) order, passed last week, before arriving at a decision on the ongoing dispute between McDonald’s India Pvt Ltd (MIPL) and Vikram Bakshi.

The matter will be heard on October 25, NCLAT Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya said. It was important to understand whether the issue between the two joint venture (JV) partners was a case of operational mismanagement or an arbitral dispute, he added. Bakshi and MIPL have a 50:50 JV in India for the North and East regions.

“We have to see if it is an operational mismanagement or arbitral dispute. The jurisdiction (of the NCLAT) would depend on that,” Justice Mukhopadhaya said.

Bakshi, the estranged MIPL partner, declined comment on the matter, saying he was awaiting the signed order.

MIPL stated it was reviewing the direction from the court.

The LCIA on September 13 had asked Bakshi to sell his stake in the JV company, Connaught Plaza Restaurants Ltd (CPRL), to the US-based fast-food chain after it upheld the latter’s position.

McDonald’s Corporation, the parent of MIPL, had moved the LCIA in December 2013 following a breakdown in ties between the two partners in July-August 2013. The LCIA matter pertained to the valuation of Bakshi’s holding in CRPL by McDonald’s, which the former had said was lower than what it actually was.

Bakshi had proposed to buy out McDonald’s stake in the 50:50 joint venture minus the brand, after he spurned the fast-food chain’s offer to buy out his stake for $7 million (Rs 41 crore) in 2008. He hired independent audit firm Grant Thornton to value CPRL. The audit firm arrived at a valuation of $331 million (Rs 1,755 crore), which was rejected by McDonald’s.

On Wednesday, the National Company Law Tribunal had postponed the hearing pertaining to the show-cause notice issued to MIPL by it for contempt of court. MIPL was slated to respond to the notice, which will now be taken up on Tuesday

Cabinet approves National Policy on Biofuels - 2018

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has approved National Policy on Biofuels – 2018. Salient Fe...