Killer Provsions of The Companies Act, 2013


File your Caveat in Supreme Court INSTANTLY

Call Ph no:+9873629841
Legal Service
  • Legal Advice
  • Lawyers Search
  • Supreme Court
  • Contact Us
  • Killer Provsions of The Companies Act, 2013

    If economic activity and growth are analogous to a wheel, then provisions of section 185 and 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 are surely analogous to disc brakes.

    Author Name:   ACS Abhishek Seth

    If economic activity and growth are analogous to a wheel, then provisions of section 185 and 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 are surely analogous to disc brakes.

    Killer Provsions of The Companies Act, 2013

    If economic activity and growth are analogous to a wheel, then provisions of section 185 and 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 are surely analogous to disc brakes.

    Efficiency of production requires efficient choice and free movement of resources. Ideally, economic models assume complete mobility of resources and perfect competition throughout the world, both of which are far away from real world scenario. The new law has been framed with all the good intentions. But if the mechanism is not efficient, right things can have wrong consequences.

    Resources include tangible, intangible, moveable, immovable and monetary resources. While section 188 takes care of the tangible, intangible, moveable and immovable resource movement, section 185 and 186 takes care of the monetary counterpart.

    Section 188 has been a regulatory scare crow since its inception. The coverage of section 188 extends to sale, purchase and supply of goods and materials, property of any kind, lease transactions, services, appointment of agents, underwriting contracts and appointment to office or place of profit.

    The coverage of section 185 extends to loans, guarantees and securities. It restricts loans, guarantees and securities to a director(s) as well as entities falling within certain radius of the director(s) like directors of lending company, holding company, relative or partner of director of such lending or holding company, any firm where the director or his relative is partner, any private company where such director is a director or member, body corporate where such director singly or jointly with other director(s) hold 25% or more voting power or the Board of which is accustomed to act in accordance with the Director or the lending company.

    While section 185 is a restrictive section, section 186 is an enabling section. Companies can lend, provide guarantee or security subject to the limits of and in compliance with section 186. Section 185 has a choking effect on the movement of intra-group funds. The exemption notification allows conditional exemption to private companies on the basis of share capital having no corporate investment, borrowing being less than lower of Rs. 50 Cr. or twice the paid up capital and clean repayment record. However, three simultaneous conditions render the exemption look good on paper only.

    The exemptions granted to private companies by MCA Notification dated June 5, 2015 takes contracts of private companies with its holding, associate, subsidiary and with fellow subsidiaries out of the purview of section 188. Additionally, the said exemption permits participation of interested directors in Board proceedings subject to disclosure of their interest. Further, related parties can vote in general meetings too!

    Third proviso to Section 188(1) states that the sub-section shall not apply to transactions which are in the ordinary course of business as well as on arm’s length basis. While ordinary course of business may be interpreted to mean transactions that the company undertakes on regular and frequent basis, what is to be considered “arm’s length” has been left untouched which creates confusion and apprehensions of future trouble.

    Consider the case of two defence manufacturers jointly acquiring a steel plant for captive consumption. If steel was to be bought from the market the input cost would be much higher for both. Now every time there is transfer of steel from the steel unit to the defence production unit, elaborate RPT rituals need to be undertaken. The only way out would be to get a wholly owned subsidiary which is permitted but may not be economically feasible or efficient.

    彩票提现不够流水被冻结 There was a stark similarity between Indian politics and RPT provisions: Majority of minority. A significant change has come as the amendment to section 188 replacing “special resolution” by “ordinary resolution”.

    The author can be reached at:

    ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3

    Author Bio:   Abhishek Seth is a Kolkata based CS who has worked in the financial services, health care, steel and real estate sectors. He holds a Masters degree in Economics from the University of Calcutta and is an Associate Member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, New Delhi. His area of interest, inter alia, include Foreign Direct Investment, Venture Capital funding and Startup ecosystems. He focuses on the corporate law and legal segment and writes out of passion.

    Views:  5857
    Comments  :  

    How To Submit Your Article:

    Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

    Submit your Article by using our online form
    Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
    For Further Details Contact:

    File Your Copyright - Right Now!

    Copyright Registration
    Online Copyright Registration in India
    Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at:

    File Divorce in Delhi - Right Now!

    Call us Right Now at: 9650499965 / or email at:

    Lawyers in India - Search By City

    彩票站快乐十分 我不想赌了网赌从输60万到赢40万 彩种大厅网址 手机大连娱网棋牌 彩票的算法 快3投注app网址 手机京东购物下载 微信有人拉我玩彩票 快3彩票端下载 怎样在火手上买彩票