MCA paves way for e-adjudication of penalties, extends C-PACE for LLPs strike off
-Lavanya Tandon, Executive & Shreshtha Barman, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Our related resources on the topic:
-Lavanya Tandon, Executive & Shreshtha Barman, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Our related resources on the topic:
– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
– Vinita Nair & Prapti Kanakia | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
January 25, 2024 (Updated on August 31, 2024)
Indian companies were permitted to raise funds from overseas either pursuant to issue of depository receipts listed overseas or having the non-residents subscribe to issuances made in India or by way of borrowing overseas. As an initiative to provide an avenue to access global capital markets, GoI had announced the decision to ease the raising of foreign funds in order to boost foreign investment inflows, unlock growth opportunities, and offer flexibility to Indian companies to raise funds. Consequently, an enabling provision for direct listing of prescribed class of securities on permitted stock exchanges in permissible foreign jurisdictions was inserted vide Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020 in Section 23 of Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA, 2013’), that deals with permissible modes of issue of securities, vide notification dated September 28, 2020, and made effective from October 30, 2023. Thereafter, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) notified Companies (Listing of equity shares in permissible jurisdictions) Rules, 2024 (‘LEAP Rules’) effective from January 24, 2024. As listing of shares abroad will result in raising funds from Persons Resident Outside India (PROI), Ministry of Finance (‘MoF’) notified FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Amendment Rules, 2024 amending FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’) with effect from January 24, 2024. SEBI is also expected to roll out the operational guidelines for listed companies to list their equity shares on permitted stock exchanges.[1]
Additionally, FAQs on direct listing scheme (FAQs) have also been rolled out on January 24, 2024. Further, two of the key recommendations of the working group report on Direct Listing of Listed Indian Companies on IFSC Exchanges submitted in December 2023 were to notify the rules under Section 23 (3) and (4) of CA, 2013 and notify necessary amendments in NDI Rules to permit cross-jurisdiction issuance and trading of equity shares of Indian companies on IFSC exchanges.
Presently, both the LEAP Rules as well as NDI Rules have notified International Financial Services Centre in India (‘Gift City’) as the permissible jurisdiction and India International Exchange and NSE International Exchange (‘IFSC Exchanges’) as the permissible stock exchange. International Financial Services Centres Authority (‘IFSCA’) had issued the IFSCA (Listing) Regulations, 2024 effective August 29, 2024 (‘IFSC Regulations’) however, in the absence of enabling provision under CA, 2013 and NDI Rules, Indian companies were unable to undertake listing of securities abroad.
In this article we provide an overview of the regulatory regime and deal with the procedural aspect.
Chapter X of the NDI Rules permits investment by a permissible holder subject to conditions specified in Schedule XI. Schedule XI inter-alia provides the permissible mode of issuance, eligibility conditions for a permissible holder and Indian companies, obligations of the companies and requirements relating to voting rights and pricing.
LEAP Rules prescribe the eligibility norms for unlisted public companies and procedural aspects in relation to timeline and form for filing the prospectus, complying with Indian Accounting Standards post listing etc.
The IFSC Regulations provide the general conditions w.r.t the principles and eligibility criteria for issuer, specific eligibility criteria for IPO, procedural requirements in case of an entity freshly listing on IFSC exchanges (Chapters I, II, III) and also norms for secondary listing of specified securities (Chapter V). Chapter VI deals with listing of special purpose acquisition companies (SPAC). Comparison of the requirements under IFSC Regulations vis-a-vis under ICDR Regulations is enclosed as Annexure 1.
Companies can raise the funds either by issuing fresh capital or by offering the existing shares. In the latter case, the existing shareholders tender their shares. Both the methods are allowed under LEAP Rules & NDI Rules for listing the equity shares on IFSCA exchanges.
Figure 2: Mode of listing
Para 2 of Schedule I to NDI Rules prohibits certain sectors for investment, meaning the company engaged in prohibited sector is not allowed to raise foreign funds[2]. The same conditions are applicable in case of listing in IFSC either by way of fresh issuance/offer for sale. Eg. Nidhi company is a prohibited sector and therefore the nidhi company cannot list its equity share in IFSC.
Further, Schedule I to NDI Rules prescribes sectoral caps which are required to be complied by the public Indian company at the time of direct listing. Refer Cap on Foreign Funds for further details.
NDI Rules, LEAP Rules, and IFSC Regulations provide certain eligibility criteria for companies intending to list the specified securities on permissible stock exchanges. The same are discussed below:
LEAP Rules are applicable to both unlisted public companies and listed public companies, however, the eligibility criteria under LEAP Rules are applicable to unlisted public companies only. Rule 5 of LEAP Rules provides that the following companies shall not be eligible for listing the equity shares in IFSC;
Figure 3: Companies ineligible under LEAP Rules
Para 3 of Schedule XI to NDI Rules provides the eligibility criteria for direct listing. Para 3(1) & 3(3) is applicable to unlisted public companies and para 3(1) & 3(2) is applicable to listed companies. The eligibility conditions are based on the type of issuance i.e. fresh issuance or offer for sale.
In case of fresh issuance, the following companies are ineligible:
Figure 4: Companies ineligible under NDI Rules, in case of fresh issuance
Most of the conditions above are similar to those provided in Reg. 5, 61, 102, etc. of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2018 (‘ICDR Regulations’) except for the ineligibility arising on account of inspection or investigation under CA, 2013. Chapter XIV of CA, 2013 deals with the requirements relating to inspection, inquiry, and investigation. The Registrar of Companies is empowered to carry out inspection in terms of Section 206 of CA, 2013 and on the basis of the outcome of the same or for other reasons specified in Section 210, the Central Government may order an investigation. In case of inspection or investigation, it is likely that the same may continue for a longer period without any tangible outcome. In such cases, this restriction will act as a deterrent for the companies eligible otherwise. Additionally, reg. 5 (2) of ICDR Regulations, an issuer is not eligible to make an initial public offer if there are any outstanding convertible securities or any other right which would entitle any person with any option to receive equity shares of the issuer. There is no such similar restriction under IFSC Regulations.
The following companies are ineligible, in case of offer for sale by existing shareholders:
Figure 5: Companies ineligible under NDI Rules, in case of offer for sale
Companies Ineligible under IFSC Regulations
Companies incorporated in India/IFSC/foreign jurisdiction are allowed to list on IFSC Exchanges, however, the issuer, any of its promoters, controlling shareholders, directors or existing shareholders offering shares should not be
Further, Regulation 9 of IFSC Regulation prescribes certain eligibility criteria for listing such as operating revenue, minimum market capitalization, PBT, etc. (Refer our article IFSC Gateway to Global Access for Indian unlisted companies to understand the conditions in detail). Hence, the entities that are not ineligible as per LEAP Rules, NDI Rules, and IFSCA Regulations and fulfilling the eligibility criteria of IFSC Regulation can list its equity shares in IFSC Exchanges.
Para 2 of Schedule XI to NDI Rules provides the eligibility criteria for the permissible holders of equity shares listed on permissible stock exchanges. Any Person Resident Outside India (‘PROI’) can be a permissible holder. Thus, an Indian resident cannot hold such shares, however a non-resident Indian can hold such shares (FAQ no. 15 & 16). The said conditions are also applicable to a beneficial owner.[3]
Where a holder is a citizen of a country which shares land border with India, or an entity incorporated in such a country, or an entity whose beneficial owner is from such a country, they can hold equity shares of such a public Indian company only with the approval of the Central Government.
To ensure that the investor is aware of the above conditions of the permissible holders, the Indian company is required to indicate the same in its offer document issued while raising funds in Gift City.
Voting rights on such equity shares will be exercised directly by the permissible holder or through their custodian pursuant to voting instruction only from such permissible holder.
As per RBI Master Directions – Liberalized Remittance Scheme (LRS) investments in IFSCs in securities except those issued by entities or companies in India (outside IFSC) were permitted. RBI Circular dated July 10, 2024 permits availing of financial services or financial products[4] (which inter alia includes securities)within IFSC. However, this cannot be construed to override the eligibility of ‘permissible holder’ prescribed under NDI Rules.
A permissible holder can invest upto the limits prescribed for foreign portfolio investors i.e. less than 10% of the total paid-up equity capital on a fully diluted basis. That means one single investor can hold less than 10% of the equity share capital on a fully diluted basis of the public Indian Company.
A permissible holder is allowed to pay the purchase/subscription consideration either to a bank account in India or deposited in a foreign currency account of the Indian company held in accordance with the FEM (Foreign currency accounts by a person resident in India) Regulations, 2015, as amended from time to time.
In case of a sale, the consideration may be remitted out of India or can be credited to the bank account of the permissible holder maintained in accordance with FEM (Deposit) Regulations, 2016 i.e. NRO/ NRE/ FNCR/ SNRR account.
Schedule I to NDI Rules provides the sectoral caps, i.e. the maximum foreign investment permissible in a particular sector. The said conditions are to be complied in case of listing on permitted stock exchanges as well since, listing on IFSC will result in raising funds from PROI. Accordingly, amounts offered to PROI in permissible jurisdiction along with equity shares held in India by PROI should be compliant of the sectoral cap. The aggregate amount held by PROI should not exceed the limits prescribed.
Further, wherever Government approval is required under Schedule I, the same shall be obtained while raising funds from permitted foreign exchange. Eg. in case of print media, foreign investment upto 26% is permitted under government route, therefore a company engaged in print media business can raise only upto 26% from permitted stock exchanges after obtaining requisite approval.
Also, the company has the option of receiving the funds either in the bank account maintained in India or in the foreign currency account maintained outside India. Indian companies are allowed to keep funds in the foreign currency account maintained with the Bank outside India, until its utilization or repatriation to India.
Para 6 of Schedule XI to NDI Rules provides for pricing of equity shares to be listed on the permitted stock exchange. LEAP Rules does not prescribe any pricing conditions.
Figure 6: Pricing of equity shares
Issuance of depository receipts is governed by Depository Receipt Scheme, 2014 read with FEMA NDI Rules and SEBI’s framework for issue of depository receipts. The regime is different from the issue of ADR/ GDR and listing on overseas exchanges.
In case of direct listing, Indian companies would be listing its ‘equity shares’ and/or ‘convertible securities’. The Companies Act, 2013 defines the term ‘listed company’ as a company which has any of its securities listed on any recognised stock exchange. However, clause (c) of Rule 2A of the Companies (Specifications of Definitions Details) Rules, 2014 (‘SDD Rules’) provides that public companies which have not listed their equity shares on a recognized stock exchange but whose equity shares are listed on a stock exchange in a jurisdiction as specified in sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act shall not be considered as a listed company.
Therefore, the status of an unlisted public company will not change upon direct listing and consequently, the additional compliances as applicable to a listed company under CA, 2013 will not apply to such company in view of express carve-out in terms of the SDD rules.
However, every Indian company getting its securities listed on stock exchanges in IFSC will be required to comply with Chapter XII[8] of the IFSC Regulations dealing with listing obligations and disclosure requirements, as applicable.
Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (‘SCR Rules’) mandates listed companies in India to have a minimum public shareholding (MPS) of atleast 25% of each kind of equity shares.
On the requirement for minimum offer and allotment to public, Ministry of Finance vide notification dated 28th August, 2024, amended Rule 19 of SCR Rules prescribing a minimum of 10% irrespective of the post issue paid up capital (as opposed to 25% applicable to listed entities in India) for companies intending to list their securities on recognized stock exchanges in IFSC. Further, the continuous listing requirement in Rule 19A has also been amended prescribing MPS requirement of atleast 10%. In case it falls below 10% at any time, the company will be required to bring the public shareholding to 10% within a maximum period of 12 months from the date of such fall[9].
In this regard, the working group committee suggested that the public holding fulfilling the definition of public shareholding as per SCR Rules[10] should be considered towards MPS and such requirements should be complied in both jurisdictions separately to ensure free float in both jurisdictions. Basis the recommendations, the working group committee recommended making appropriate changes in the SCR Rule. In view of the aforesaid amendment, it seems that MPS norms are required to be separately maintained.
Non-residents i.e. permissible holders are exempt from the applicability of capital gains tax in case of transfer of foreign currency denominated equity shares of a company where the consideration is payable in foreign currency pursuant to Section 47(viiab) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Notification dated 5th March, 2020. Also, Securities Transaction Tax, Commodities Transaction Tax, and stamp duty in respect of transactions carried out on IFSC exchanges is exempt.
The initiative is quite encouraging and will benefit India Inc. in fundraising, however, the ineligibility on account of pending inspection/investigation needs to be revisited. The requirements post listing, as per IFSC Regulations are also numerous, several of them being on similar lines as provided under Listing Regulations.
[1] As per the press release by PIB.
[2] Prohibited sectors include- Lottery business, Gambling and betting, Chit funds, Nidhi company, Trading in TDR, (a) Real estate business or construction of farm houses, Manufacturing of cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes, of tobacco or of tobacco substitutes, Atomic energy, Railway operations, Foreign technology collaborations in any form for lottery business and gambling and betting activities.
[3] Beneficial owner as defined as per proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005
[4] “financial product” means—(i) securities; (ii) contracts of insurance; (iii) deposits; (iv) credit arrangements; (v) foreign currency contracts other than contracts to exchange one currency for another that are to be settled immediately; and (vi) any other product or instrument that may be notified by the Central Government from time to time.
[5] Inserted vide FEM (Mode of Payment and Reporting of NonDebt Instruments) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024
[6] 1. United States of America – NASDAQ, NYSE 2. Japan – Tokyo Stock Exchange 3. South Korea – Korea Exchange Inc. 4. United Kingdom excluding British Overseas Territories- London Stock Exchange 5. France – Euronext Paris 6. Germany – Frankfurt Stock Exchange 7. Canada – Toronto Stock Exchange 8. International Financial Services Centre in India – India International Exchange, NSE International Exchange.
[7] The onus of identification of NRIs holders, who are issued DRs in terms of employee benefit scheme, would lie with the listed company. The listed company is required to provide the information of such NRI DR holders to the designated depository for the purpose of monitoring of limits.
[8] Part A: General Obligations; Part B: Companies with Specified Securities Listed on Recognised Stock Exchanges as a Primary Listing and Part C: Secondary Listing of Specified Securities.
[9] Manner of achieving MPS has been prescribed vide SEBI Circular dated February 3, 2023.
[10]Rule 2(e) of SCR Rules defines public shareholding as equity shares of the company held by public including shares underlying the depository receipts if the holder of such depository receipts has the right to issue voting instruction and such depository receipts are listed on an international exchange in accordance with the Depository Receipts Scheme, 2014.
Provided that the equity shares of the company held by the trust set up for implementing employee benefit schemes under the regulations framed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India shall be excluded from public shareholding.
Provided that the equity shares of the company held by the trust set up for implementing employee benefit schemes under the regulations framed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India shall be excluded from public shareholding.
Click here to register for the workshop: https://forms.gle/3vdQjaLJY1Sgs4Ps5 |
You may also refer to our detailed article and youtube video.
You may refer to our other FAQs on dematerialization of shares here and you may also refer to our Snippet, detailed article and YouTube Video
Share warrants are one of the widely used means to raise funds, particularly, in case of start-ups. MCA has recently notified the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 (“Amendment Rules”) vide which Rule 9 has been amended to require mandatory conversion of the existing share warrants issued by public companies under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 (“Erstwhile Act”) into dematerialised form of securities.
Following this amendment, a significant question comes up to be addressed is whether public companies will not be allowed to issue share warrants altogether? We attempt to decode the implications of the present amendment in this write up.
The newly inserted sub-rule (2) and (3) to Rule 9 of the PAS Rules requires every unlisted company to –
The company shall be required to issue notice for the bearers of share warrants in form PAS-8 on its website as well as two newspapers – in vernacular language, having wide circulation in the district and in English language having wide circulation in the state in which the registered office of the company is situated.
In the context of the newly inserted sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, the term share warrants is to be interpreted in a much restricted sense. The provision refers to “share warrants prior to commencement of the Companies Act, 2013 and not converted into shares”, which implies share warrants issued under the Erstwhile Act only. In this regard, one may refer to section 114 of the Erstwhile Act that allowed public companies to issue “bearer warrants” entitling the bearer of such warrants to the shares specified therein. The same was referred to as “share warrants” under the said Act, and the shares contained therein can be transferred through mere delivery of the warrant.
The present amendment requires mandatory surrender of such “share warrants” in the form of “bearer warrants” against issuance of shares in dematerialised form.
As mentioned above, the “share warrants” referred to under the Amendment Rules are limited to the bearer warrants issued in accordance with the Erstwhile Act, and do not extend to all share warrants which companies issue under the various provisions of law.
In general context, share warrants are actually written options to subscribe to the shares of a company on pre-agreed terms at a future date. Such warrants are fairly common in the corporate world on account of the benefits associated with the same, and the present amendment cannot be said to rule out the possibility of issuance of such share warrants. Share warrants are directly or indirectly recognised under various provisions of law, for instance:
While the Act does not mention at several places under it about share warrants, however, at few places, like the provisions under section 68 dealing with buy back of securities as well as reference to employee “stock options”, which, by nature are equivalent to share warrants are given the Act.
Therefore, there are no explicit provisions that prohibit the issuance of share warrants by unlisted companies, and the same, being a “security” can very well be issued by a company, whether listed or unlisted, in compliance with the applicable provisions of law to meet the required funding as well as investment objectives.
The Amendment Rules aim at the wiping out of the bearer share warrants, since the legal and beneficial ownership of the shares are non-traceable in such a case. However, that does not eliminate the concept of share warrants as a whole, that are issued to an identified set of persons, and follows a due procedure laid down in the law for transfer of such warrants. Although not expressly defined under the Act, the concept of share warrants is legally recognised under various laws and are being widely issued by Indian companies, whether listed or unlisted, including private companies. The current set of amendments will have no impact on the permissibility of issuing share warrants issued under the Act and other laws as mentioned hereinabove.
– MCA requires every company to designate person responsible for providing information with respect to beneficial interest in shares
– Payal Agarwal, Senior Manager | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
The concept of “beneficial owner” or BO is well-established under the Companies Act, 2013 by way of section 89 and 90 read with the rules made thereunder. The primary onus of declaration of beneficial interest lies on the person holding such beneficial interest. For the purpose of assigning responsibility to one or more person with respect to the compliance with the said provisions, Rule 9 of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014 (“MGT Rules”) has been amended vide the Companies (Management and Administration) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2023 introducing the concept of “designated person” for the purpose of the said section. The amendment has been notified and made applicable from the date of its publication in the official gazette, i.e, 27th October, 2023.
The concept of “designated person” has been brought in vide sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the MGT Rules. It requires “every company” to designate a person to be responsible for “furnishing, and extending co-operation for providing, information to the Registrar or any other authorised officer with respect to beneficial interest in shares of the company.” Therefore, a person, identified as a designated person under this rule, would be expected to be aware of, and therefore, take all reasonable steps to become aware, of the person holding “beneficial interest” in the shares of the company.
The applicability of the requirement to identify a designated person is not limited only to such companies that have received declarations with respect to “beneficial interest”, but extends to every company. It is upon the ROC/ other authorities to seek information with respect to beneficial interest from any company, and any such information, as and when sought, will be required to be provided by the designated person identified under this rule.
Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 deals with the person qualified to be a designated person. It requires one of the following to act as a “designated person”:
Therefore, a company may, acting through its board of directors, preferably through a duly passed board resolution in this regard, designate the CS, or any of the KMPs or directors of the company to act as a designated person. The use of the term “every director” does not imply that all directors shall be identified as “designated person”, rather, it would mean that either of the directors can be designated under the aforesaid rule.
The provisions are applicable immediately, and therefore, till the time a company designates a person for compliance with the aforesaid, the following persons shall be deemed to be designated person:
The details of the designated person are required to be disclosed in the annual return. The annual return is an e-form filed with ROC, and the present change would require a modification in the existing format so as to facilitate the provision of such information. Further, since the provisions are applicable from 27th October, 2023, the disclosure should be applicable for the annual return filed for FY 23-24 and onwards.
Any changes in the designated person is also required to be intimated to the ROC in e-form GNL-2. No timeline has been specified for filing the same, but should be filed within a reasonable period of time.
The introduction of the concept of “designated person” with respect to the “beneficial interest” in the shares of a company, will have the impact of assigning responsibility and accountability on the designated person with respect to compliance with the provisions of the Act relating to beneficial interest. Recently, many companies have received advisories from the ministry to ensure compliance with the provisions of declaration of beneficial ownership, and the present amendment would act as a “single point assistance” to the authorities in their inspection of companies with respect to compliance with declaration of “beneficial interest”.
You may also refer to our Snippet and YouTube video
Our other resources on beneficial owners can be accessed here –
MCA notifies mandatory dematerialisation for securities of private companies
Two major amendments have been notified by MCA on 27th October, 2023 impacting all companies, and majorly the private companies. These include the Companies (Management and Administration) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2023 introducing the concept of “designated person” with respect to beneficial interest in shares of a company[1] and the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 (“PAS Amendment Rules”). The PAS Amendment Rules encompass two major amendments: (i) with respect to the bearer share warrants under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, and (ii) mandatory dematerialisation for all private companies excluding small companies. In this write-up, we briefly discuss the amendments with respect to mandatory dematerialisation of securities for the private companies and the implications thereto.
Sub-section (1A) was inserted under Section 29 of the Companies Act 2013 (“the Act”) facilitating the Central Government to prescribe such class or classes of unlisted companies for which the securities shall be held and/ or transferred in dematerialised form only. In exercise of the powers conferred under the said section, Rule 9B has been inserted vide the PAS Amendment Rules specifying the requirement of mandatory dematerialisation of securities issued by private companies.
The mandatory dematerialisation requirement is applicable on all securities of every private company, excluding small companies[2] and government companies. The provisions are applicable with immediate effect, and a timeline of 18 months is provided from the closure of the financial year in which a private company is not a small company for the compliance with the mandatory dematerialisation requirements.
For example, a private company (other than a company that is a small company as on 31st March, 2023) is required to comply with mandatory dematerialisation of securities within a period of 18 months from the end of FY 22-23, i.e., on or before 30th September 2024.
In case a company ceases to be a small company after 31st March, 2023, the timeline of 18 months triggers from the close of the financial year in which it ceases to be a small company. Therefore, if a company ceases to be a small company at any time during FY 23-24, the timeline of 18 months will trigger from 31st March, 2024 and therefore, shall be complied with by 30th September 2025.
Rule 9B of the PAS Rules, enforcing mandatory dematerialisation of the securities of private companies, is applicable on all private companies other than the following:
In case of unlisted public companies, sub-rule (11) of Rule 9A extends a similar exemption from dematerialisation requirements. The said sub-rule covers the following public companies –
It is important to note that a wholly owned subsidiary, though exempt from the dematerialisation requirements under Rule 9A, similar exemption does not extend to a private company under Rule 9B. Therefore, currently it seems that a wholly-owned subsidiary, incorporated in the form of a private company, is not exempt from dematerialisation requirements.
Further, for a private company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a public company, and therefore, a deemed public company, it remains an open question as to whether it will be exempt under sub-rule (11) of Rule 9A or the provisions of Rule 9B will apply.
The position may be summarised as below –
Nature of wholly-owned subsidiary | Nature of holding company | Applicability of dematerialisation provisions |
Public company | Public company | Exempt under Rule 9A(11) |
Public company | Private company | Exempt under Rule 9A(11) |
Private company | Private company | Covered under Rule 9B as of now |
Private company | Public company | The same being a deemed public company, there is no clarity on whether Rule 9A applies or Rule 9B. If considered to be a private company – covered under Rule 9B If considered to be a public company – exempt in terms of Rule 9A(11) |
A private company, covered under the provisions of mandatory dematerialisation shall –
Apart from the aforesaid, the compliances applicable to an unlisted public company under sub-rule (4) to (10) of Rule 9A are also applicable to private companies. These include –
As for persons holding securities of a private company, while the mandatory dematerialisation cannot be enforced by the private company, the same is expected to be taken care of by way of sub-rule (4) of Rule 9B that requires –
Therefore, the mandatory dematerialisation of securities of a private company is ensured through placing restrictions on both a private company and the holders of securities issued by the same.
There are no specific penal provisions governing the non-compliance with the provisions of section 29 of the Act read with Rule 9B of the PAS Rules, and therefore, general penal provisions under section 450 of the Act should apply.
Section 450 specifies the following:
“If a company or any officer of a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or any condition, limitation or restriction subject to which any approval, sanction, consent, confirmation, recognition, direction or exemption in relation to any matter has been accorded, given or granted, and for which no penalty or punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees, and in case of continuing contravention, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which the contravention continues, subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and fifty thousand rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person.”
The existence of shell companies and personification of shareholders is not a rare scenario, and such a situation is likely to be more common in case of a private company, unlike a public company. Historically, dematerialisation of shares is looked upon by the government as a means to curb black money[3]. As for listed companies and unlisted public companies[4], the dematerialisation of securities is already a mandatory requirement. With the present amendments being notified, the private companies have also been covered by the mandatory dematerialisation requirements.
As on 31st January, 2023, more than 14 lac companies registered with MCA comprising 95% of the total active companies are private companies, out of which approximately 50,000 companies are small companies[5]. Thus, with the mandatory dematerialisation for private companies coming into existence, a large number of companies will be forced to move towards dematerialisation of shares. Further, while the company can be held accountable for the mandatory dematerialisation of securities held by promoters, directors and KMPs, given the closely held nature of private companies, barely any securityholder (particularly shareholders) will remain outside the purview of the same.
Further, it is clarified that, in no way such a mandatory dematerialisation for private companies can be taken to mean that the restriction on transfer of shares of such a company is relaxed, and adequate systems can be implemented at the depository’s level to ensure compliance with the basic distinguishing characteristic of a private company and thereby have filters before executing any transfer of securities.
You may also refer to our Snippet, FAQs and YouTube Video
[1] Read our article on the same here – https://vinodkothari.com/2023/10/companies-to-disclose-designated-person-with-respect-to-beneficial-interest-in-shares/
[2] As per the definition under the Act read with the rules made thereunder, a small company means a company, other than a public company, having paid up share capital not exceeding Rs. 4 crores and turnover not exceeding Rs. 40 crores. Further, the following cannot be a small company –
(A) a holding company or a subsidiary company;
(B) a company registered under section 8; or
(C) a company or body corporate governed by any special Act.
[3] https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/legal-trends/government-looking-to-dematerialise-shares-of-unlisted-cos-to-curb-black-money-2382347.html
[4] https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Physical-to-demat-a-move-from-opacity-to-transparency.pdf
– Vinod Kothari | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
If the intent of CSR provisions coded in the law was to promote socially responsible conduct on the part of companies, that lesson of responsibility is being taught the very hard, indiscriminately harsh way – by imposing penalties of 2X of the amount involved in CSR breaches, even if the breach was a pure timing mismatch. By now, there are several such adjudication orders – purely as an example, is where the order clearly notes that there has been no failure on the part of the company to spend the failed amount of Rs 14.50 lacs. The amount was indeed spent, as intended for “ongoing projects”, but there mere segregation of this money into a separate bank account, required to be done within 30 days, was missing. Applying the provisions of sec. 135 (7) which provides for a “penalty of twice the amount” which failed the segregation requirement, though it did not fail the spending requirement.
There are several points that arise here: segregation of the amounts meant to be spent for ongoing projects is merely a ring-fencing requirement, such that companies are aware of the purpose for parking the money, and such money is indeed not commingled with the company’s own funds. If the funds are indeed spent for the purpose for which they are to be segregated, the failure to segregate is, at the most, the failure of the method and not the ultimate result. The failure was transient, and only a timing issue, and not a substantive failure. Therefore, even if punishable, the punishment could not have been the maximum amount provided by the law.
Read more →