Youtube Video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DNOJDB9o0k
Measures for the CAPF and CMPF veterans and dependants now a part of CSR activity
Ankit Vashishth, Executive, Vinod Kothari and Company; email@example.com
Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’) currently includes measures taken for the armed forces veterans, war widows and their dependants as one of the CSR activities. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) vide its Notification dated 23rd June, 2020 has included contribution made towards the benefit of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and Central Para Military Forces (CPMF) veterans and their dependents including widows, within the ambit of CSR.
MCA has issued several notifications either to clarify or broaden the ambit of Schedule VII. This Notification is yet another step taken by the MCA for widening the scope of CSR activities to include CAPF and CMPF veterans and their dependants and war widows.
This note tries to provide a quick coverage on the said amendment.
Difference between Armed Forces and CAPF/CPMF
|The term “armed forces” basically means – Indian Armed Forces which are the military forces of the Republic of India. It comprises three professional uniformed services :
1. The Indian Army
2. The Indian Navy
3. The Indian Air Force
|CAPF (Central Armed Police Force) consists of :
1. Assam Rifles (AR);
2. Border Security Force (BSF);
3. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF);
4. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF);
5. Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP);
6. National Security Guard (NSG); and
7. Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB)
|The nomenclature CAPF will be used uniformly for CPMF as per the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs issued on March 18, 2011|
Current CSR spending pattern and changes expected due to the amendment
The current pattern for CSR spending for armed forces veterans, war widows and their dependants include contributions to several funds like:
- Armed Forces Flag Day Fund (AFFDF)
- Army Wives Welfare Association (AWWA)
- The Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties
Apart from donating to these funds, companies have also provided financial relief to the martyr’s families and have conducted workshops for the children of war widows as a part of their CSR projects.
Further, in addition to the above, contribution to “National Defence Fund” which is used for the welfare of the members of the Armed Forces (including Para Military Forces) should be eligible for being a CSR activity.
As a result of the enhanced scope for CSR spending for CAPF/ CAMF, contribution to the fund “Bharat Ke Veer Corpus Fund”, which was previously not eligible for CSR considering the fact that it specifically benefits CAPF, will now be covered as per the amendment. Accordingly, any contribution to this fund will now qualify as a CSR activity.
High Level Committee on CSR
MCA had constituted a High Level Committee (HLC) on CSR in February, 2015 under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Corporate Affairs) to review the existing CSR framework and formulate a coherent policy on CSR and further make recommendations on strengthening the CSR ecosystem, including monitoring implementation and evaluation of outcomes. Later, the HLC on CSR was re-constituted in November, 2018. The scope of HLC was widened to include recommendation of guidelines for enforcement of CSR provisions. Though the Report discussed on amending Schedule VII in line with promoting sports, senior citizens’ welfare, welfare of differently abled persons, disaster management, and heritage, however, it did not consider widening the clause relating to the scope of armed forces in the Schedule.
Further, as evident from the data given in the HLC Committee Report, CSR expenditure made on armed force veterans, war widows/ dependents have seen an upward trend over the years, however it forms a very small proportion of the total CSR expenditure made.
The service spirit of CAPF is no less than that of the Indian Army. Acknowledging this fact MCA has brought this amendment. While all the areas for CSR are extremely important for the overall socio-economic welfare and development, the measures taken for the benefit of veterans and dependants of the armed forces and CAPF/ CPMF is an extremely noble activity.
Link to our other articles:
CSR: A ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ or a ‘Corporate Social Compulsion’?
Proposed changes in CSR Rules
FAQs on Corporate Social Responsibility
Read our other articles on Corplaw : http://vinodkothari.com/category/corporate-laws/
Link to our Youtube Channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzB-ZviIMcuA_1uv6jATbg
The article has been published in ICSI – WIRC-E Newsletter (June-July 2020 edition):
Refer page 43 of ICSI – WIRC-E Newsletter
by Smriti Wadehra & Qasim Saif
MCA considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the social distancing norms issued by the Government, realized that conducting physical AGM by companies within the prescribed timeline shall be difficult for this financial year. Accordingly, the Ministry vide its circular dated 5th May, 2020 has permitted holding of Annual General Meetings (AGM) through video conferencing for all meetings conducted during the calendar i.e. till 31st December, 2020. The said circular read with previous circulars dated 13th April, 2020 and 8th April, 2020 prescribed a detailed procedure as to how companies can conduct their general meetings virtually.
While these circulars dealt with various perplexities arising from the thought of virtual general meetings, however, there was still some clarification pending on applicability of other requirements applicable on companies, for instance, the requirement of webcasting under regulation 44(6) of SEBI (Listing Obligation and Disclosure Requirements) Regulation, 2015.
We discuss the same as below.
Webcast vs Video conferencing
The very basic differentiation in the term webcast and video conferencing is that, the former only provides one-way participation rights but the later provides for a two-way communication. In reference to providing webcasting facility during the AGM, the shareholders can only watch and listen to the proceedings of the meeting but cannot participate in voting or ask queries whereas in video conferencing the shareholders have complete participation as in case of a physical general meeting. Webcasting is merely “live streaming” of the AGM.
Intent of webcast
The requirement for providing webcast facility was recommended by Kotak Committee on Corporate Governance which provided:
“Reg 44A. Meetings of shareholders
The top 100 listed entities by market capitalization, determined as on March 31 of every financial year, shall provide one-way live webcast of the proceedings of all shareholder meetings held on or after April 1, 2018”
The aforesaid recommendation was in addition to the recommendation w.r.t. e-voting facility which as per the existing provision of law, is closed at 5 p.m. of the previous day of the meeting, however, the committee recommended to shift the closure of e-voting facility to the day of meeting itself. The intent behind the recommendation was that the e-voting timeline expires before the meeting is held, accordingly, shareholders not attending the meetings in person are unable to take into account discussions at the meeting in order to make informed decisions.
Whereas, SEBI accepted the recommendations made by the Kotak Committee on 9th May, 2018 w.r.t. webcasting facility and inserted a new sub-regulation, however, the recommendation w.r.t e-voting is still in draft form. The provisions relating to webcast were made applicable to top 100 listed entities from 1st April, 2019.
The whole intent of conducting annual general meetings is the indispensable right to the shareholders of companies to meet the directors and auditors of the Company, at least once in a year. This has been the feature of corporate laws over the decades – based on the fact that the “managers” (directors) at least face the “owners” (shareholders) once. The law therefore, mandates physical meetings. However, with the rise of technology, call it necessity or evolution, the law embraced e-voting as a recognised means of voting (but not participation). Later, SEBI introduced the concept of providing one-way webcast facility for shareholders so as to increase participation of shareholders at meeting (though one-way).
The data shows that attendance of shareholders at AGMs is even less than 5% of total number of shareholders at Meeting. Further, most of the shareholders (especially those residing in state other than where the AGM is conducted) find it more feasible to vote by way of e-voting. In the data below, we can observe that on an average 95% of members of some well reputed companies vote through e-voting while on-site voting percentage is negligible. Therefore, it can be said, that the members do not really depend on meeting discussions to take a decision. However, webcast enables them to be apprised of the conduct of the meeting, shareholder queries, concerns, etc. raised at the meeting, etc.
Globally, countries like United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, France, China and many such countries have permitted conducting meeting through video conferencing during the crisis. Further, the concept of webcasting is new for India. However, for many foreign countries including those named above have included providing of webcasting facility in shareholder’s meeting as a requirement of law.
Webcast facility in virtual AGM, whether required?
Now, the question is, where the AGM has itself gone ‘virtual’ (as mentioned above), is there really a requirement of webcasting? Note that SEBI has not provided any relaxation from webcasting as such.
It may be noted that video conferencing is nothing but participation through electronic means by shareholders remotely i.e. other than the venue of AGM. Therefore, where the company has already provided the facility of video conferencing to shareholders, webcast may not actually be needed. The purpose which the webcast intends to serve (dissipation of conduct of meeting) is well-served by the video-conferencing. In fact, in webcast the shareholders get only participation rights i.e. to hear and view the proceedings of meeting. However, in case of virtual AGM, the shareholders are provided with two-way participation rights i.e. can speak as well. Hence, provided two options, the shareholders will mostly opt for the latter.
The webcast, however, can be of relevance where the participation capacity is limited. In this regard, MCA circular dated 8th April, 2020 has prescribed minimum capacity allowance by companies conducting virtual AGM. For companies that are required to provide e-voting facility has to arrange capacity of minimum 1000 members at virtual AGM on first come first basis. This limit is minimum 500 members for companies not required to provide e-voting facility. Hence, the platform for conducting virtual AGM should provide for aforesaid minimum.
We all know that mostly large companies have lakhs of shareholders. Therefore, if companies restrict the entry of shareholders on first come first basis i.e. does not allow participation right to all shareholders in virtual AGM (due to software limitations, etc.), in that case webcast facility should be provided (if required). However, if companies do not restrict any shareholder from participation in virtual AGM and is open for all shareholders irrespective of the number, in such cases providing separate facility for webcast may turn out to be a futile exercise.
-by Smriti Wadehra
-Updated as on 29th September, 2020
Pursuant the proposal of Union Budget of 2019-20, the MCA vide notification dated 16th August, 2019 amended the provisions of Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 .(You may also read our analysis on the notification at Link to the article) The said amended Rules faced a lot of apprehensions, especially, from the NBFCs as the notification which was initially expected to scrap off the requirement of creation of DRR for publicly issued debentures had on the contrary, rejuvenated a somewhat settled or exempted requirement of creation of debenture redemption fund as per Rule 18(7) for NBFCs as well.
As per the notification, the Ministry imposed the requirement for parking liquid funds, in form of a debenture redemption fund (DRF) to all bond issuers except unlisted NBFCs, irrespective of whether they are covered by the requirement of DRR or not. In this regard, considering the ongoing liquidity crisis in the entire financial system of the Country, parking of liquid funds by NBFCs was an additional hurdle for them.
Creation of DRR is somewhat a liberal requirement than creation of DRF, this is because, where the former is merely an accounting entry, the latter is investing of money out of the Company. Further, the fact the notification dated 16th August, 2019 casted exemption from the former and not from the latter, created confusion amidst companies. The whole intent of amending the Rule was to motivate NBFCs to explore bond markets, however, the requirement of parking liquid funds outside the Company as high as 15% of the amount of debentures of the Company was acting as a deterrent for raising funds by the NBFCs.
Considering the representations received from various NBFCs and the ongoing liquidity crunch in the economy of the Country along with added impact of COVID disruption, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has amended the provisions of Rule 18 of Companies (Share Capital and Debenture) Rules, 2014 vide notification dated 5th June, 2020 to exempt listed companies coming up with private placement of debt securities from the requirement of creation of DRF.
What is DRR and DRF?
Section 71(4) read with Rule 18(1)(c) of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 requires every company issuing redeemable debentures to create a debenture redemption reserve (“referred to as DRR”) of at least 25%/10% (as the case maybe) of outstanding value of debentures for the purpose of redemption of such debentures.
Some class of companies as prescribed, has to either deposit, before April 30th each year, in a scheduled bank account, a sum of at least 15% of the amount of its debentures maturing during the year ending on 31st March of next year or invest in one or more securities enlisted in Rule 18(1)(c) of Debenture Rules (‘referred to as DRF’).
The notification has mainly exempted two class of companies from the requirement of creation of DRF:
- Listed NBFCs registered with RBI under section 45-IA of the RBI Act, 1934 and for Housing Finance Companies registered with National Housing Bank and coming up with issuance of debt securities on private placement basis.
- Other listed companies coming up with issuance of debt securities on private placement basis.
However, the unlisted non-financial sector entities have been left out. In a private placement, the securities are issued to pre-selected investors. Raising debt through private placement is a midway between raising funds through loan and debt issuances to public. Like in case of bilateral loan arrangements, but unlike in case of public issue, the investors get sufficient time to assess the credibility of the issuer in private placements, since the investors are pre-identified.
The intent behind DRF is to protect the interests of the investors, usually when retail investors are involved, with respect to their claims on maturity falling due within a span of 1 year. This is not the case for investors who have invested in privately placed securities, where the investments are made mostly by institutional investors.
Further, companies chose issuance through private placement for allotment of securities privately to pre-identified bunch of persons with less hassle and compliances. Hence, the requirement of parking funds outside the Company frustrates the whole intent.
Further, it is a very common practice to roll-over the bond issuances, hence, it is not that commonly bonds are repaid out of profits; the funds are raised from issuance of another series of securities. This is a corporate treasury function, and it seems very unreasonable to convert this internal treasury function to a statutory requirement.
Though, in our view, the relaxation provided in case of private issuance of debt securities is definitely a relief, especially during this hour of crisis, but we are not clear about the logic behind excluding unlisted non-financial sector entities.
Even though, the financial sector (76%) entities dominate the issuance of corporate bonds, however, the share of the non-financial sector entities (24%) is not insignificant. Therefore, ideally, the exemption in case of private placements should be extended to unlisted non-financial sector entities as well.
A brief analysis of the amendments is presented below:
Pursuant to the MCA notification dated 16th August, 2019, the below mentioned class of companies were required to either deposit or invest atleast 15% of amount of debentures maturing during the year ending on 31st March, 2020 by 30th April, 2020. This has been extended till 31st December, 2020 for this FY 2019-20 by MCA due to the COVID-19 outbreak. However, pursuant to the amendment introduced by MCA notification dated 5th June, 2020 the status of DRF requirement stands as amended as follows:
|Particulars||DRF requirement as MCA circular dated 16th August, 2019||DRF requirement as per MCA circular dated 5th June, 2020|
|Listed NBFCs which have issued debt securities by way of public issue||Yes.||Yes. Deposit or invest before 31st December, 2020|
|Listed NBFCs which have issued debt securities by way of private placement||Yes||Not required as exempted.|
|Listed entities other than NBFC which have issued debt securities by way of private placement||Yes||Not required as exempted|
|Listed entities other than NBFC which have issued debt securities by way of public issue||Yes||Yes. Deposit or invest before 31st December, 2020|
|Unlisted companies other than NBFC||Yes.||Yes. Deposit or invest before 31st December, 2020|
Please note that the aforesaid shall be applicable from 12th June, 2020 i.e. the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette. In this regard, if for instance companies which have been specifically exempted pursuant to the recent notification, have already invested or deposited their funds to fulfil the DRF requirement may liquidated the funds as they are no longer statutorily require to invest in such securities.
Synopsis of DRR and DRF provisions
A brief analysis of the DRR and DRF provisions as amended by the MCA notification dated 16th August, 2019 and 5th June, 2020 has been presented below:
|Sl. No.||Particulars||Type of Issuance||DRR as per erstwhile provisions||DRR as per amended provisions||DRF as per erstwhile provisions||DRF as per amended provisions|
|1.||All India Financial Institutions||Public issue/private placement||×||×||×||×|
|2.||Banking Companies||Public issue/private placement||×||×||×||×|
|Listed NBFCs registered with RBI under section 45-IA of the RBI Act, 1934 and HFC registered with National Housing Bank||Public issue||√
25% of value of outstanding debentures
|4.||Unlisted NBFCs registered with RBI under section 45-IA of the RBI Act, 1934 and HFC registered with National Housing Bank||Private Placement||
|Other listed companies||Public Issue||√
25% of value of outstanding debentures
25% of value of outstanding debentures
|6.||Other unlisted companies||Private Placement||√
25% of value of outstanding debentures
10% of the value of outstanding debentures
 This table includes analysis of provisions of DRR and DRF as per CA, 2013 and amendments introduced vide MCA notification dated 16th August, 2019 and 5th June, 2020.
Erstwhile provisions- Provisions before amendment vide MCA circular dated 16th August, 2019
Amended provisions- Provisions after including amendments introduced vide MCA circular 5th June, 2020
The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), vide its order dated 22nd May, 2020 set aside the directions issued by the Hon’ble Principal Bench for impleadment of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) as a respondent-party to all applications filed under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
This comes in light of the order dated 22nd November, 2019 of the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench of New Delhi (‘NCLT’/ ‘Principal Bench’), in the matter of Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sikka Papers Ltd. & Ors, wherein the Hon’ble NCLT directed that “…In all cases of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and Company Petition, the Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs through the Secretary be impleaded as a party respondent so that authentic record is made available by the officers of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for proper appreciation of the matters..”(‘Impugned Directions’). The said requirement was directed to be made applicable in all benches of NCLT, pan-India.