– Prapti Kanakia | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Other related resources:
– Payal Agarwal, Partner | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
See our webinar on the same here: https://youtu.be/quOA5A9G0II
Secretarial auditors for listed entities: FAQs on disqualifications and prohibited services
FAQs on SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations,2024
Nitu Poddar, Partner | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
After over two years of implementing CG norms for HVDLE on a ‘comply or explain’ basis, a new Chapter VA has been inserted in the LODR on March 28, 2025, governing CG norms for pure HVDLEs. Among other things, the new chapter outlines the requirements relating to board and committee composition, subsidiary governance, RPT framework for HVDLEs, etc.
As regards the RPT framework, the one for HVDLE (reg 62K) introduces an additional requirement: consent from debenture holders through NOC from the debenture trustees.
This criteria has been added to fix the “impossibility of compliance” (of getting approval from unrelated shareholders for material RPTs) in case of HVDLEs as most of these have either nil or negligible unrelated shareholders. This also underscores the requirement to protect the interest of the lenders, particularly the debenture holders – aligned with s. 186(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
However, there are a few practical implementation issues and inconsistencies, possibly arising from the CG norms (prior to the LODR 3rd Amendment in 2024) for an equity listed entity (chapter IV) being the drafting template for this new chapter. This article highlights these issues, particularly those affecting 62K, given the structure of HVDLEs.
Structural difference between HVDLE and an equity listed company
Before beginning to list such inconsistencies, it is important to highlight the structural difference between an HVDLE and an equity listed company – the very reason why a separate chapter for CG has been rolled out for an HVDLE!
HVDLEs are mostly closely held companies with all or close to all shareholders being related parties, approval from unrelated shareholders often becomes an impossibility. Further, considering that the funding to HVDLEs is by the debenture holders, protection of their interest becomes paramount. Accordingly, approval from the debenture holders have been made mandatory for undertaking any material RPTs by a HVDLE.
13.3.3 Since, both banks and debenture holders are lenders to the borrowing entity, it is felt that a similar approach should be adopted for debenture holders. This provides a layer of protection to the debenture holders who might be at risk of unfair treatment due to some RPTs which may also have an impact on the repayment capability of an entity. It is noted that the debenture holders’ interest is intended to be safeguarded by a debenture trustee [SEBI Consultation Paper date October 31, 2024]
Present exemptions – some extra; some missing
Lets now discuss the inconsistencies that needs to be fixed:
The shareholders of the holding and its WOS are effectively the same and any benefit / resources, if at all transferred to the WOS, in case of an RPT between a holding and WOS, is to consolidate in the holding company and remain within the enterprise. Therefore, such transactions are exempted u/r 23(5). But this theory holds correct in case of an equity listed company only where the interest of equity shareholders needs to be protected.
However, in a debt-listed structure, the concern shifts from the ‘enterprise’ to the individual ‘entity’. The exposure of debenture holders is required to be protected. A debenture holder may have exposure only to the WOS, not the holding company. In such case, exempting RPTs between the holding company and its WOS (or between two WOS) overlooks the distinct legal and financial obligations of each entity. The interest of debenture holder can be considered only by seeking “their” approval for a RPT. The relationship of holding company and WOS between the transacting company does not ensure any protection to the debenture holders. The exemption in 62K(7), mirroring 23(5), places debenture holders at the mercy of equity shareholders in the holding company – contradicting the spirit of the rest of Regulation 62K, which otherwise mandates their approval.
Think of a situation where a WOS (which has issued the debentures) upstreams value to its parent. While equity shareholders in the parent may remain unaffected, the WOS may be left with insufficient resources to repay its debenture obligations. Debenture holders cannot claim recourse against the parent; their exposure is limited to the WOS.
Remuneration paid to KMP and SMP who are not promoters, payment of statutory dues, transactions between PSU and CG / SG which are exempted for an equity listed entity have not been replicated under 62K. There is no reason why these exemptions which are provided to an equity listed entity, shall not be provided to an HVDLE, when the underlying intent of these exemptions aligns with an HVDLE.
Our related resources on the topic:
Visit our Website: https://vinodkothari.com/
Our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@vinodkotharicompany
– Sourish Kundu, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Every year, as companies close their books on 31st March, a silent timer begins ticking — one that could turn a minor delay into a major compliance miss. 30th April isn’t just another date on the calendar; it’s a hard stop for companies to take action regarding their unspent CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) obligations.
Why 30th April? What must you do? What if you don’t? Let’s walk through it — step by step.
In terms of Section 135(6) of the Companies Act, 2013:
“Any amount remaining unspent under sub-section (5), pursuant to any ongoing project, fulfilling such conditions as may be prescribed, undertaken by a company in pursuance of its Corporate Social Responsibility Policy, shall be transferred by the company within a period of thirty days from the end of the financial year to a special account in any scheduled bank called the ‘Unspent Corporate Social Responsibility Account.'”
Thus, by 30th April, companies must transfer unspent CSR amounts related to ongoing projects into a special CSR account.
If the company:
In short:
1. Unspent on non-ongoing projects? → Transfer to a Schedule VII Fund within 6 months of FY end (i.e., by 30th September).
2. Unspent on ongoing projects? → Transfer to Unspent CSR Account by 30th April, then spend it within 3 years, failing which again transfer to a Fund.
Rule 2(1)(i) of Amendment Rules defines the term ‘ongoing project’ as:
The same should have commenced within the financial year to call it ‘ongoing’. This includes a project that was initially not approved as a multi-year project. The intent is to include a project which has an identifiable commencement and completion. The expenses which are recurring in nature should not be included in the ongoing project.
For example, if a company contributes to the annual running expense of a cancer hospital, the spending for the next year cannot be regarded as an “ongoing project”. However, if installation of a new facility at the same hospital is already undertaken during the year, such expense should be regarded as an “ongoing project”.
The auditor must specifically report:
Thus, both the Board and Auditor are responsible for ensuring, documenting, and reporting CSR compliance – and failure can attract regulatory scrutiny and penal consequences.
Read more:
Knowledge Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Need for strategic vision in CSR spending by companies
Corporate law changes: small steps towards procedural simplification
– Application of RPT controls for transactions with Wholly owned Subsidiaries
– Payal Agarwal, Partner | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Wholly owned Subsidiaries (WoS) form a particular paradox in corporate laws with two contradictory positions – (a) the transactions entered into between the holding company and its WoS are viewed as transactions within a group, thus, permitting a seamless flow of resources between the two without any objection, looking at an “enterprise” level whereas, (b) limiting the access of the shareholders and creditors of the holding company and the WoS to the respective entity’s resources, thereby separation of the two at an “entity” level.
Section 185 of CA 2013 exempts any financial assistance to the WoS from the compliance requirements under the section, and the limits on loans, guarantees, investments or provision of security under section 186 do not apply for transactions with WoS. Section 177(4)(iv) and 188 of CA 2013, pertaining to RPT controls, also extend certain exemptions for transactions with WoS. Reg 23(5) of SEBI LODR also exempts transactions with WoS as well as between two WoS from approval requirements, at both the Audit Committee and shareholders’ level. Reg 37A of SEBI LODR contains an exemption from shareholders’ approval requirements for sale, lease or disposal of an undertaking to the WoS. In each of the aforesaid provisions, the underlying presumption remains the same – the accounts of the WoS are consolidated with that of the holding company, and hence, the flow of resources remain within the same ‘enterprise’, despite change of ‘entity’. Thus the law takes an ‘enterprise’ wide view instead of an ‘entity’ level view while providing for such exemptions.
On the other hand, the outreach of shareholders of a company is limited at an ‘entity’ level, that is to say, the shareholders of the holding company do not have access to the general meetings of the WoS. Similarly, the creditors of each entity do not have any recourse against the other entity. For instance, where the holding company has outstanding dues, but there are resources at the WoS level, can the creditors reach to the assets of the WoS? The answer is no. Similarly, a vice versa situation is also not possible. In fact, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code too, the assets of the subsidiary are kept outside the purview of the liquidation estate of the holding corporate debtor [Section 36(4)(d)].
Further, the board of a WoS is different from its holding company. The board of the holding company does not have any rights over the board of the subsidiary. Therefore, under these situations, transactions between the holding company and its WoS, though between companies that are 100% belonging to the same group, cannot be viewed as completely seamless or free from any corporate governance concerns.
The aforesaid discussion makes it clear that while an ‘enterprise’ wide approach is taken in granting exemptions to WoS, the separation of legal entities cannot be completely disregarded, because the outreach of the shareholders, creditors and the board of directors remain limited. Now from the point of view of related party transactions, can it be argued that the transactions between a holding company and WoS are without any restraint altogether? For example, does the concept of arm’s length has no relevance in case of a transaction between a holding company and WoS?
A light touch regulation or inapplicability of certain controls or approvals does not mean that arm’s length precondition becomes unnecessary. If such a view is taken, then the flow of resources between the holding company and the WoS will be completely without any fetters, thus breaching the concept of corporate governance at an entity level. For instance, can the board of directors of the holding company be absolved from its responsibilities to safeguard the assets of the holding company where the same flows to the subsidiary without any consideration? The answer surely is a no. Both ‘entity’ level and ‘enterprise’ level are significant, and hence, one cannot disregard the separation of legal entities, particularly, in the context of protection of assets of the entity (also see discussion under Role of Board below).
As regards the concept of arm’s length, the same is omnipresent – required to be ensured in transactions with related parties as well as unrelated entities. The meaning of arm’s length transaction, as defined under SA 550 pertaining to Related Parties, is as follows:
A transaction conducted on such terms and conditions as between a willing buyer and a willing seller who are unrelated and are acting independently of each other and pursuing their own best interests.
Therefore, ‘independence’ and ‘own interests’ are important elements of an arm’s length transaction. If compromised in RPTs with WoS, absence of arm’s length criteria could lead to uncontrolled flow of wealth from the holding company to WoS, and may also lead to abusive RPTs.
The exemptions w.r.t. transactions with WoS make the same prone to misuse, through use of the WoS as a conduit or a stop-over for giving effect to arrangements with non-exempt RPs. For instance, a listed entity in the FMCG sector is required to provide financial assistance to its upstream entities (promoter group entities). There may be a lack of business rationale and commercial justification for such a transaction, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that such a transaction would get the approval of the AC. Therefore, in order to give effect to the transaction, the company may route the same through its WoS, and thus escape RPT controls at its AC level. The WoS may, in turn, pass on the benefit to the promoter group entities, through a series of transactions, in order to cover the real character of the transaction (see figure below).
A guidance note published by NFRA also, requires identification of indirect transactions, including through ‘connected parties’. In order to ensure no such indirect transactions have occurred, the management is expected to establish procedures to identify such transactions, and to obtain periodic confirmations from the directors, promoter group, large shareholders and other related parties that there are no transactions that have been undertaken indirectly with the listed company or its subsidiaries or its related parties.
The role of the board towards avoiding conflicts of interests is deep-rooted under the corporate laws and securities laws, under various applicable provisions. For instance, the directors have a responsibility towards safeguarding the assets of the company and for preventing and detecting fraud and other irregularities [Section 134(5)(c) of CA 2013]. Section 166 of CA 2013 specifies the duties of directors. These include, among others, the duty to act in good faith in order to promote the objects of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in the best interests of the company [Section 166(2)].
The key functions of the board, as contemplated under Reg 4 of LODR, also includes monitoring and managing potential conflicts of interest of management, members of the board of directors and shareholders, including misuse of corporate assets and abuse in related party transactions.
As stated above, Reg 23(5) of SEBI LODR exempts RPTs entered into between a holding company and its WoS from the approval requirements of both the AC and the shareholders.
Apart from Reg 23 of LODR, the RPT provisions are contained under Section 177 and 188 of CA 2013. Under section 177(4)(iv) of CA 2013, all RPTs require approval of the AC. The fourth proviso to the said sub-section exempts RPTs entered into with WoS from AC approval requirements. However, the said exemption is not absolute. The proviso reads as follows:
Provided also that the provisions of this clause shall not apply to a transaction, other than a transaction referred to in section 188, between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary company.
Thus, the exemption for RPTs with WoS does not apply in case of a transaction referred u/s 188 of CA 2013. In other words, where an RPT with WoS triggers approval requirements u/s 188, the same will also be required to be approved by the AC u/s 177 first.
Section 188(1) of CA 2013 provides a list of 7 types of transactions. The list is wide enough to cover almost all types of transactions, except financial assistance in the form of loans etc. However, section 188 becomes applicable, only, in cases where any one or more of the two most crucial elements of a transaction are missing – (i) ordinary course of business and (ii) arm’s length terms. In cases where a transaction does not meet the ordinary course of business or the arm’s length criteria, the same is referred to the board of directors u/s 188 of CA 2013, and requires prior approval of the board.
The fifth proviso to section 188(1) also contains an exemption for RPTs between the holding company and its WoS. Note that the said exemption is applicable only with respect to the approval of the shareholders, the approval of board is still required for RPTs that lack one of the two elements stated above, even though with WoS.
Provided that no contract or arrangement, in the case of a company having a paid-up share capital of not less than such amount, or transactions not exceeding such sums, as may be prescribed, shall be entered into except with the prior approval of the company by a resolution:
XXX
Provided also that the requirement of passing the resolution under first proviso shall not be applicable for transactions entered into between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary whose accounts are consolidated with such holding company and placed before the shareholders at the general meeting for approval:
The conditional exemption given u/s 177 and the absence of any exemption from board’s approval u/s 188 clearly confirms the requirement of ensuring arm’s length terms in transactions with WoS.
The AC is the primary decision-making authority in respect of matters relating to related party transactions. NFRA, the audit regulator of the country, has published the Audit Committee – Auditor Interactions Series 3 dealing with audit of Related Parties. The guidance sets out potential points on which the AC may interact with the auditors in the context of RPTs. Where a company avails exemptions w.r.t. AC and shareholders’ approval, the guidance note requires documentation of the rationale for not obtaining Audit Committee’s and Shareholders’ approvals.
Thus, the AC is expected to be the scrutinising authority in ensuring that the terms on which a transaction is proposed to be entered into with a WoS are at an arm’s length, which, in turn, would require bringing the transaction before the AC, if not for approval, then for a pre-transaction scrutiny and information.
Ind AS 24 pertaining to Related Party Disclosures require disclosures to be made in the financial statements that the RPTs were made on terms equivalent to those that prevail in arm’s length transactions. However, such disclosure can be made only if such terms can be substantiated. Note that the Ind AS 24 does not contain any exemption for WoS. In the absence of a strict scrutiny of RPTs with WoS for satisfaction of arm’s length basis of the terms of the transaction, such an assertive statement in the financial statements for arm’s length of the terms is not possible.
In view of the expectations from the AC, board and the auditors, and the potential risks of abusive RPTs using WoS as an intermediary, the following approach may be undertaken before entering into a transaction with WoS:
Read more:
Related Party Transactions- Resource Centre
Bo[u]nd to ask before transacting: High value debt issuers bound by stricter RPT regime
FAQs on Standards for minimum information to be disclosed for RPT approval
Participation is free, register at – https://forms.gle/UZWAqtee3dUjtasn8
Read our resources:
FAQs on appointment of secretarial auditors for listed entities
FAQs on SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations,2024
Lavanya Tandon, Senior Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Through the updated SEBI FAQs on LODR Regulations rolled out on April 23, 2025, SEBI has yet again clarified that listed entities are required to disclose the names of all entities forming part of promoter / promoter group (P/PG), irrespective of any shareholding in the listed entity in the quarterly reporting of shareholding pattern to the stock exchanges. (FAQ no. 19 of section II)
Regulation 31(4) of LODR (inserted via SEBI (LODR) (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2018) clearly mandates all entities falling under promoter and promoter group to be disclosed separately in the shareholding pattern. However, inspite of this clear mandate, as a matter of practice, India Inc seemingly has decided to disclose names of only such PGs who have shareholding in the company. With this reiteration of regulators expectation in its FAQ, this is the sign for the listed entities to buckle up and collate the entire list of PGs, irrespective of shareholding, for disclosure in the shareholding pattern (next disclosure due in June, 2025)
It should be noted that a complete list of P/PG complements the listing of related parties as one of the elements of the definition of related party is “any person or entity forming a part of the promoter or promoter group of the listed entity”.
SEBI’s persistence requiring disclosure of complete list of PG
Since the longest time now (first through reg 31A and then through reg 31(4) among others), SEBI has been stressing in every way the requirement of disclosing the complete list of PG, irrespective of their shareholding. Below are the instances where SEBI has identified the practice / clarified its position, over and over again.
While Reg 31 of SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015 mandates that all entities falling under promoter and promoter group shall be disclosed separately in the shareholding pattern, there have been cases where listed companies have not been disclosing names of persons in promoter(s)/ promoter group who hold ‘Nil’ shareholding. There is therefore a need for further clarification in this regard to the listed companies
Q6. Can the name of the promoter be removed from the Shareholding Pattern during the Quarter in case the Shares are transferred/sold?
The name of the promoter can be removed only after seeking approval of Reclassification from the Exchange. Meanwhile Companies are requested to show the promoters/promoter group with nil shareholding till the approval for Reclassification is granted from Exchange.
Table II of the shareholding pattern has been amended as under: i. A footnote has been added to the table II that provides the details of promoter and promoter group with shareholding “NIL”
Getting re-classified to stop disclosure – the only way
In the matter of Jagjanani Textiles Limited, upon transferring the entire shareholding, the name of a PG entity was not disclosed in the P/PG category; rather disclosed in the public category. SEBI observed this as a violation of Reg 31(4). [See para 12 of the Order]
“12. It is observed that the promoter group entities of Noticee 1 i.e. Noticee 5 and 3 had acquired 2,94,000 shares and 5,51,424 shares during the quarter ended March 2013 and March 2014 respectively and since then both the Noticee 5 and 3 had been the shareholders of the Noticee 1 till the date of filing of DLoF i.e. April 10, 2023 except during the quarter ended September 2014 to June 2015 w.r.t the Noticee 5 where she ceased to be the shareholder. In this regard, it is observed that in terms of Regulation 31(4) of LODR Regulations, all entities falling under promoter and promoter group are required to be disclosed separately in the shareholding pattern appearing on the website of all stock exchanges having nationwide trading terminals where the specified securities of the entities are listed, in accordance with the formats specified by the Board. It is therefore alleged that both the Noticee 5 and 3 had been wrongly disclosed as Public shareholder during the aforesaid period. Further, it is observed that the Noticee 1 had confirmed to rectify the error in the shareholding pattern filed for the quarter ended June 30, 2023”
Where an entity not holding any shares in the listed entity wants to stop disclosing its name in the shareholding pattern – the only way is to apply for reclassification u/r 31A and get such approval from the stock exchange. Until such approval is obtained, one needs to disclose its name in the P/PG category.
Our related resources on the topic
Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Loading…
Reload document 
Open in new tab