Article on Exemptions to private companies under companies act 2013 impact analysis

1. VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015 C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS
14
EXEMPTIONS TO PRIVATE COMPANIES UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 2013 – IMPACT ANALYSIS
Contributed by :
CS BHAVIK GALA
C.S., L.L.B., P.G.D.S.L, MIMA,
AM.IOD, B.COM
(a member of the association
he can be reached at
bhavikg85@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Good rules are always essential to allow businesses
to function with ease just as they are required to
allow traffic to flow smoothly, but the challenge is to
strike the right balance between regulation and
relaxation.
Regulators always strive to achieve a balance so that
a reasonable level of oversight is achieved without
excess cost of compliance.
Section 462 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”)
empowers the Central Government to exempt certain
class or classes of companies from any of the
provisions of the Act and also to provide exceptions,
modifications and adaptations that shall apply to
certain class or classes of companies.
Under the Companies Act, 1956, private companies
were subjected to a substantially relaxed and
relatively straightforward compliance regime. The
Act however, constrained the operational flexibility
hitherto available to private companies bringing
them at par with public companies on several counts
of compliances.
Finally, on the back of several representations by
industry associations and keeping in line with the
theme of “Ease of Doing Business” and “Make in
India” Campaign, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India had recently vide its
Notifications from time to time provided relaxations
to Private Limited Companies to reinstate the
relaxed policy regime for private companies.
Needless to say, the private company exempting
notification of June 05 2015 is the most important, as
this covers nearly 90% of the companies by number.
These exemptions and relaxations are
applicable only to a private company which is
not a subsidiary of public company. The existing
compliance requirements and restrictions will
continue to apply to a public company and a private
company which is a subsidiary of public company.
In this article, the major relaxations granted to
private companies have been analysed in detail
pursuant to issue of Notification of June 05, 2015 and
also other notifications issued thereafter by the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs granting relaxation.
RELAXATIONS GRANTED TO PRIVATE
COMPANIES
1. FILING OF BOARD RESOLUTIONS
WAIVED FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES
[CHAPTER VII – SECTION 117(3)(g) -
REDUCTION OF COMPLIANCE BURDEN
& RESTRICTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO
PROCEEDINGS OF BOARD MEETINGS]:
Section 117(3)(g) of the Act requires companies to
file copies of Board Resolutions passed in
connection with certain matters dealt with under
section 179(3) and the rules framed thereunder
with the Registrar of Companies.
These matters include:
making calls on shareholders in respect of
money unpaid on their shares
authorizing buy-back of securities under
Section 68
issuance of securities, including debentures,
whether in or outside India
borrowing of monies
investing the funds of the company
granting loans or giving guarantee or
providing security in respect of loans
approving financial statement and the
Board’s report
diversifying the business of the company
approving amalgamation, merger or
reconstruction
“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the
whole truth and acting accordingly.” ¯ Mahatma Gandhi
DISCLAIMER:
This write up is the personal property of the author to this article. If this write-up is circulated, content of this disclaimer and
credit to CS Bhavik Gala shall be retained.
The content of this write up is purely academic and is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and not
intended to be a professional advice and should not be relied upon for real life facts and the views are of personal opinion in
nature. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances, if any.

2. C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015
15
· taking over a company or acquiring a
controlling or substantial stake in another
company
· additional matters as prescribed under Rule
8 of Companies (Meetings of Board and its
Powers) Rules, 2014
One of the major relaxations for private
companies is exemption from complying with the
requirements of Section 117(3)(g) of the Act i.e.
filing certain Board resolutions under provisions
of Section 179 (3) of the Act. This section requires
companies to file certain specified board
resolutions with the Registrar of Companies in
the requisite form MGT 14 which has completely
been exempted in case of private companies, by
snapping the connection between Section 117
(3)(g) and Section 179(3).
The exemption from filing is a major relief as
private company board minutes are a internal
matter for the company and the filing
requirement was perceived as a huge compliance
burden.
No such provision was there in the Companies
Act, 1956 with regard to the filing of resolutions
with the Registrar which have been passed by
the Board. Only the Special Resolution and the
specified resolutions / agreement were required
to be filed with.
Note, however, that Section 179 (3) itself has not
been exempted. That is, wherever there is a
matter being one of the items listed in that sub-
section, the resolution of the board will still be
required and can not be passed through
circulation. All that is exempted is that there will
be no need to file a resolution with the Registrar.
2. RESTRICTION ON PURCHASE OF OWN
SHARES
[CHAPTER IV, SECTION 67 – EXEMPTED
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS]
Section 67 of the Act inter alia provides that no
company limited by shares and no company
limited by guarantee and having share capital
shall buy its own shares.
The private company has now been exempted
from complying with the provisions of section 67,
subject to the following conditions:
a. no other body corporate has invested any
money in share capital of the Company;
b. Borrowing from banks, Financial
Institutions or Body corporate is less than
twice of its paid up capital or Rs. 50 crore,
whichever is lower; and
c. such a private company should not have
defaulted in repayment of borrowings as may
be existing on the date of the transaction
under the section.
Section 67 is similar to Section 77 of the
Companies Act, 1956 which had exempted
private companies (which are not subsidiaries of
public companies) from the provisions of this
section. However, the aforesaid three conditions
mentioned in Section 67 now are new.
Neither a private company, nor a public company
was permitted to buy its own shares either unless
coupled with consequent reduction of capital
under the provisions of Section 67(1). With the
Notification now exempting private companies
from the application of Section 67 (subject to the
above conditions) implies that the private limited
company may buy its own shares without
consequent reduction in capital.
Since both Section 100 of the 1956 Act and
Section 68 of the Act contemplate consequent
reduction in capital, the question remains
whether the intent of Notification by exempting
private companies from Section 67 also exempts
it from the compliance of the provisions of section
68 of the Act, for buying its own shares!!!
3. KINDS OF SHARE CAPITAL AND VOTING
RIGHTS
[CHAPTER IV, SECTION 43 & 47 –
EXEMPTION IF PROVIDED IN
MEMORANDUM OR ARTICLES OF
ASSOCIATION]
Under the 1956 Act, private companies could
issue equity shares with differential voting
rights without having to comply with certain
rules and restrictions that otherwise applied to
public companies and had full flexibility in
structuring their securities.
However, Section 43 of the 2013 Act prescribes
that a company is allowed to have only two kinds
of share capital - equity shares (with or without
differential rights to dividend, voting or
otherwise) and preference share capital. Further,
all companies are required to fulfil certain
conditions to be eligible to issue equity shares
with differential rights. This section is
“Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.”

3. VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015 C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS
18
essentially in the same form as it was under the
1956 Act, the only difference being that the 1956
Act exempted private companies from the
equivalent provision.
Section 47 of the Act provides that the equity
shareholders shall be entitled to vote on all
resolutions, while preference shareholders are
permitted to vote only on resolutions which
would affect their rights or are in relation to
winding up or reduction of capital of the
Company as prescribed under the 2013 Act.
The Notification provides that Section 43 and
Section 47 of the 2013 Act will not apply to a
private company if the memorandum of
association or the articles of association of such
private company provides so.
This relaxation would provide major relief,
especially for private equity funds since they
typically want priority on dividend, liquidation
and entitlement to vote on an as-if-converted
basis. Before this exemption was granted, there
was difficulty in structuring instruments with
such rights, which will now be possible.
This exemption will also help in structuring
returns and liquidation preference to foreign
investors.
4. DEFINITION OF RELATED PARTY
[CHAPTER I - SECTION 2(76)(VIII) IS NOT
APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO
SECTION 188 OF THE ACT]
Certain related party transactions as specified in
Section 188(1), require the approval of the Board
of Directors at Board meeting, besides disclosure
of certain information pertaining to such related
party transactions in agenda of board meeting
and that the interested director shall not remain
present during discussion of related party
transactions. In addition, transactions whose
value is beyond prescribed limits, require prior
approval of shareholders.
Clause (viii) of Section 2(76) of the Act includes in
the list of related parties :
i. Holding company
ii. Subsidiary Company
iii. Associate company
iv. Fellow Subsidiary company
Section 2(76)(viii) is now not applicable to a
private company with respect to Section 188.
Accordingly, a contract by a private company will
not be regarded as a related party transaction if
it is entered into by a private company with its
holding company, subsidiary company, associate
company or a fellow subsidiary company.
Although holding, subsidiary, associate company
and subsidiary of holding company are excluded
from definition of ‘related party’, the Director
(other than an independent Director), Key
Managerial Personnel of holding company or
their relative(s) are still included in definition of
related party.
Since the Notification does not exempt private
companies from the applicability of Section
2(76)(iv) of the 2013 Act, if the directors or
managers in one private company are directors
or members in another private company, a
transaction between the two such companies
would be considered as a related party
transaction despite the exemption granted from
Section 2(76)(viii).
Further, compliances with respect to disclosure
requirements of related party transactions shall
be applicable to a private company.
5. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS:
[CHAPTER XII – SECOND PROVISO TO
SECTION 188(1)]
With regard to related party transactions, second
proviso to Section 188(1) which states that no
member of the company shall vote on the
ordinary resolution to approve any contract or
arrangement which may be entered into by the
company, if such member is a related party, has
been exempted for private companies.
A special feature inserted in respect of RPTs in
Companies Act, 2013 is that in general meeting
for approval of a related party transaction, a
member who is a related party is not allowed to
vote on such a resolution. This provision shall not
apply in case of private companies.
This implies that, if a private company enters
into any contract or arrangement with a related
party requiring prior approval of the company,
the related parties are now allowed to vote on
such a resolution.
Most of the contracts or arrangements by a
private company with its other related parties
like its directors, a firm in which its director is a
“At first, they’ll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding
the more they’ll dislike you.” - Criss Jami, Killosophy

4. C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015
19
partner, a private company in which its director
is a member or director, will still require either
consent of the Board or a resolution of the
general body depending upon the threshold of the
transaction. But members who are related
parties will be allowed to vote on such
resolutions.
This is a big relief to the private companies as
having disinterested members was not at many
times possible in private companies where there
are few members who are mostly related to each
other.
6. LOAN TO DIRECTORS ETC.
[CHAPTER XII- SECTION 185 – SHALL NOT
APPLY (IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS)]
Section 185 of Companies Act, 2013, prohibits a
company from advancing loan (including
represented by book debt) to any of its directors
or to any other person in which the director is
interested. Prohibition even extends to giving of
guarantee or providing any security in
connection with any loan that the directors avail
in their personal capacity.
The exemption has now been granted to private
companies from compliance of provisions of
Section 185 provided it complies with the
following conditions:
(a) There shall be no other body corporate
shareholder in the lending company;
(b) if the borrowings of such a company from
banks or financial institutions or any body
corporate is less than twice of its paid up
share capital or fifty crore rupees, whichever
is lower; and
(c) Such a company has no default in repayment
of such borrowings subsisting at the time of
making transactions under this Section.
The restriction under Section 185 was one of the
most significant pain points under the 2013 Act.
This has probably been the most resisted
provision by the industry. Considering the
closely held nature of private companies and the
way in which such companies function, it was
expected that intra-group transactions between
private companies be relaxed.
However, exemption from Section 185 being
contingent on the condition that no corporate
shall be a shareholder and debt – equity ratio
shall not be more than 2:1 substantially restricts
the applicability of the exemption. It also
remains to be seen whether convertible debt on
the books of the company will be seen as debt or
equity.
Section 185 of Companies Act, 2013 is parallel to
Section 295 and 296 of Companies Act, 1956 and
it is interesting to note that Private Companies
were exempted from section 295 & 296 of
Companies Act, 1956 without any conditions.
7. PARTICIPATION OF INTERESTED
DIRECTORS IN MEETING
[CHAPTER XII –SECTION 184(2) – SHALL
APPLY WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTION]
Section 184(2) of the 2013 Act requires interested
directors to disclose his/ her interest at the board
meeting in which the contract or arrangement is
discussed and he/she shall abstain from
participation in discussions pertaining to such
contract or arrangement.
The MCA Notification now provides that an
interested director of a private limited company
may participate in the board meeting after
disclosing his/ her interest. This relaxation
however, is subject to the director providing
disclosures of his interest in the prescribed form
before he/ she participates in the meeting.
Prior to this exemption, many private companies
have found it difficult to comply with the
provisions of Section 184(2), especially in a
situation where there are only two directors and
either one or both of them are interested.
Absence of disinterested directors often led to
certain peculiar compliance issues in private
companies with two directors, such as not being
able to enter details of contracts in the register of
contracts, as the board of directors was not
permitted to take note of related party contracts.
Such issues have been solved under the
Notification.
Although, this provision will certainly lead to
ease of decision making by private companies,
there seems to be some anomaly. Such an
interested director may participate in a Board
meeting of a private company after disclosure of
his interest but he cannot be counted for the
purpose of ascertaining quorum under section
174(3) since section 174(3) provides Directors
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning
of a single individual.” ¯ Galileo Galilei

5. VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015 C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS
20
who are not interested and present at the
meeting shall be the quorum. Whereby, there can
be a situation where a Board Meeting of a private
company may not be held for want of quorum of
disinterested directors although exemption has
been given for an interested director to vote in a
matter where he is interested.
It is interesting to note that corresponding
Section 300 of Companies Act, 1956 was totally
not applicable to private companies under earlier
regime.
8. RESTRICTIONS ON POWERS OF BOARD
[CHAPTER XII – SECTION 180]
Section 180(1) of the 2013 Act provides that the
board may exercise its power in respect of the
following matters only with the approval of
members by way of special resolution:
· Sale, lease or disposal of the whole or
substantially whole of the undertaking of the
company;
· Investment of the amount of compensation
received by the company as a result of
merger or amalgamation in trust securities;
· Borrowing money exceeding the aggregate of
the company’s paid-up share capital and free
reserves; and
· Remittance or granting time for the
repayment of, any debt due from a Director.
Now, the provisions of Section 180 of the 2013
Act are not applicable to Private Company. The
similar provisions of the section 293 of
Companies Act, 1956 were not applicable to
private companies.
This exemption will avoid unnecessary delays in
obtaining shareholders’ approval by way of
special resolution for the specific matters in
Section 180 of the 2013 Act, thereby facilitating
ease of operation of private companies. On a
practical note, this would ease approvals for
slump sale and asset sale transactions by private
companies.
9. CONDUCT OF GENERAL MEETINGS
[CHAPTER VII – SECTIONS 101-107 & 109 –
SHALL APPLY UNLESS OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED IN RESPECTIVE SECTIONS
OR THE ARTICLES PROVIDE
OTHERWISE]
Sections 101 to 107 and Section 109 of the 2013
Act deal with the requirements of convening and
conducting of general meetings by all companies,
such as service of notice of general meeting,
explanatory statement, quorum, chairperson of
the meetings, appointment of proxies, restriction
on voting rights, voting by show of hands and
demand for poll.
• Notice of General Meeting (Section 101)
• Statement to be annexed to notice (Section 102)
• Quorum for meeting (Section 103)
• Chairman of meetings (Section 104)
• Proxies (Section 105)
• Restriction on voting rights (Section 106)
• Voting by show of hands (Section 107)
• Demand for poll (Section 109),
Now, the said provisions of Sections 101 to 107
and Section 109 of the Act shall not apply to a
private company unless otherwise specified in
the respective Sections or the articles of a private
company provide otherwise.
Under the 1956 Act, a private company could lay
down its own procedure in respect of conduct of
its general meetings. This power was not
available under the 2013 Act.
The MCA Notification has restored this power
and provided private companies with the
flexibility to decide their own procedure for
conducting general meetings by incorporating
the provisions in their articles of association.
10. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS
[CHAPTER XI – SECTION 160 & SECTION
162 – NOT APPLICABLE]
Section 160 deals with right of persons other
than retiring directors to stand for directorship
subject to 14 days notice in writing before the
meeting along with the deposit of rupees 1 lac.
This section has been exempted for private
companies. Thus persons other than retiring
directors may now stand for directorships in
private companies:-
• without leaving a written notice 14 days before
the meeting; and
• without deposit of Rs. 1 lac.
This is similar to Section 257 of Companies Act
1956 which was not applicable to private
companies.
Further, Section 162 of the Act prohibits
“Myth is much more important and true than history. History is just journalism and
you know how reliable that is.” ¯ Joseph Campbell

6. C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015
21
companies from passing a single resolution for
appointment of two or more directors unless such
a motion has first been agreed to unanimously by
all the shareholders.
Now, private company is exempted from the
applicability of Sections 162 of the 2013 Act.
This exemption would ease compliance
requirements for private companies in respect of
appointment of directors.
11. NUMBER OF COMPANIES IN WHICH A
PERSON CAN ACT AS AUDITOR
[CHAPTER X, SECTION 141(3)(g) - SHALL
APPLY WITH MODIFICATIONS]
Section 141(3) prescribes the eligibility of a
person for appointment as an auditor of the
Company. Further, Section 143(3)(g) states that
following person shall not be eligible for
appointment as an auditor:
a. who is in full time employment elsewhere, or
b. person or partner of a firm who holds at the
date of appointment or reappointment,
appointment as auditor of more than twenty
companies.
An auditor who engages himself for the purpose
of statutory audit in more than 20 companies,
would attract to disqualification and liable to
vacate office.
Now, the words “other than one person
companies, dormant companies, small
companies and private companies having
paid up share capital of less than one
hundred crores rupees” have been inserted
after the words ‘twenty companies’. It implies
that while calculating the limit of twenty
companies, the one person companies, dormant
companies, small companies and the private
companies with the paid up share capital of less
than rupees 100 crores will be excluded.
This means a private Company having paid-up
share capital of less than Rs 100 crores may
appoint its Auditor irrespective of the limit of 20
audits provided under section 141(3)(g).
In addition to removing restrictions on auditors,
this relaxation would permit private companies
which are part of the same group to retain the
same statutory auditor.
12. ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS
[CHAPTER V – SECTION 73(2)(a) to (e) –
NOT APPLICABLE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
CONDITIONS]
As per the provisions of section 73(2), a company
is allowed to accept deposits from its members
subject to certain conditions as prescribed under
clause (a) to (f) of the said section. The said
conditions are as below:
a) Issuance of circular to the members
containing required particulars / disclosures;
b) Filing of circular with the Registrar of
Companies;
c) Opening of Deposit Repayment Reserve
Account with scheduled bank and depositing
the prescribed amount therein;
d) Deposit insurance;
e) Certificate regarding no default committed
by the company in repayment of deposits
and/or interest thereon; and
f) Creation of security, if any, and registration
of charge thereon.
The Notification has exempted private
companies from the requirements of clause (a) to
(e) of Section 73(2) above, provided that the
amount of deposit accepted by the private
company does not exceed 100% of aggregate of
paid-up capital and free reserves of the private
company and the relevant filings with the
Registrar of Companies has been made.
Rule 3(3) of the Companies (Acceptance of
Deposits) Rules, 2014 (“Deposit Rules”) provides
that a company cannot accept or renew any
deposits from its members, if the amount of such
deposits together with the amount of other
deposits outstanding as on the date of acceptance
or renewal of such deposits exceeds 25% of the
aggregate of the paid-up capital and free reserves
of the company. Since the Deposit Rules have not
been amended by the MCA Notification, there
appears to be a conflict between the provisions of
the Notification and those of the Deposit Rules in
respect of private companies.
Deposits from Directors’ relatives
exempted:
‘MCA’ vide its notification dated 15th September,
2015 (yet to be gazetted) has issued the
Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Second
Amendment Rules, 2015, which inter alia
amended Rule 2(1)(c)(viii) thereby exempting
deposit received from the relative of director of
private company provided such relative furnish
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”

7. VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015 C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS
22
a declaration that the amount is not being
given out of funds acquired by him by
borrowing or accepting loan or deposits
from others and that the company shall
disclose money so accepted in the Board’s
Report.
Although these aforesaid relaxations does not
liberalize acceptance of deposits by private
companies to the extent of the position under the
1956 Act, it eases the acceptance of deposits by
private company as a large number of private
companies are formed as closely held companies.
In these types of entities, loans and advances
from relatives who are members are the most
important sources of finance. This in turn would
ensure free flow of hassle-free resources to
private companies.
12. FURTHER ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL
[CHAPTER IV – MODIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 62(1)(a)(i), 62(2) AND 62(1)(b)]
Section 62(1)(a)(i) of the Act provides that the
offer period for a rights issue should be for a
period not less than 15 days and not exceeding 30
days from the date of opening of the offer. Section
62(2) of the Act also requires the company to
dispatch the offer letter in respect of the rights
issue through speed post or registered post or
electronic mode to all the shareholders at least 3
days before the date of opening of the issue.
Further, under Section 62(1)(b), the approval of
the members of the company by way of a special
resolution was required for the purpose of
issuance of Employee Stock Option
Schemes(ESOPs).
The MCA Notification introduces a new proviso
to Section 62(1)(a)(i), which provides that if at
least 90% of members of a private company give
their consent in writing or in electronic mode, a
period lesser than that specified for minimum
offer period and period for dispatch of rights
issue offer letter can be adopted in respect of the
rights issue. Further, in respect of issue of
ESOPs, now the members of the private company
can approve such issuance by way of an ordinary
resolution.
The modification to the Section enables private
companies to meet their funding requirements at
a shorter notice, without the requirement of
complying with a minimum offer period of 15
days and may close its offer for rights issue in
less than 15 days period [the period may be
reduced to less than 15 days but cannot be
extended beyond 30 days]. Further, The notice
for making the rights offer may be despatched in
less than 3 days period before opening of the
issue. Such exemption to private companies was
also provided under Section 81(3)(a) of the
Companies Act, 1956.
The Notification remains ambiguous as to
whether the consent of 90% of the shareholders
by value or by number has to be obtained.
The Notification would also ease the process of
issuance of ESOPs to employees of private
companies.
13. APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERIAL
PERSONNEL
[CHAPTER XIII - SECTION 196(4) & (5)]
Section 196(4) deals with approval of the terms
and conditions of appointment of Managing/
Whole time Director/Manager by the Board/
General Meeting/Central Government as the
case may be.
Section 196(5) deals with validating actions of
Managing/Whole time Director/Managers, if the
appointment is not approved by a company in
general meeting.
Now pursuant to MCA Notification, Section
196(4) and Section 196(5) are not applicable to
private companies. Thus, in case of private
companies the appointment or remuneration of
the Managing Director, Whole time Director or
the Manager does not require approval at the
Board Meeting/General Meeting and
subsequently the approval of Central
Government is also not required, even if the
conditions for appointment are not as per the
requirements of Schedule-V of the Act.
Requirement of filing return of appointment of
Managerial Personnel with the Registrar of
Companies. and Provisions governing validity of
acts of Managerial Personnel not being approved
by the members, are also not applicable.
Section 196 of Companies Act, 2013 is similar to
sections 197A, 267, 269, 317, 384, 385 and 388 of
the Companies Act, 1956 read with Schedule
XIII. Broadly they were not applicable to private
companies which are not subsidiaries of public
limited companies.
“If an offense come out of the truth, better is it that the offense come than that the truth be concealed.”

8. C.V.O. CA’S NEWS & VIEWS VOL. 19 NO. 4 / OCTOBER 2015
23
14. MINIMUM CAPITAL REQUIREMENT –
CHAPTER I – SECTION 2(68)
Another relief to private companies has been
brought through the Companies (Amendment)
Act, 2015, whereby for the ease of doing business
in the country, the requirement of minimum
paid- up share capital of rupees 1 lac for private
companies has been dispensed with. However the
MCA has reserved the right to specify the same
by way of its rule making authority.
As a result of the omission of the requirement of
having a minimum paid up capital, special
purpose vehicles can now be formed with a
nominal capital, which provision is present in
various countries.
CONCLUSION
Private companies have a critical role to play in the
growth of the economy. Most of the start-ups are
floated as private companies and therefore it is
essential that such companies are not burdened with
cumbersome compliances.
The Companies Act, obviously one of the most
important instruments of doing business in India,
must occupy a key place in the Prime Minister's
objective of making India a good place to do business.
"Scare little" has been done by way of the exempting
notification, even less by the Companies
(Amendment) Act 2015.
In this context, the exemption notification for private
companies are a much awaited one. With these
exemptions, it is expected that many companies
would be able to carry on their businesses with ease.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is mindful of the
stakeholders’ voice and it does consider the
suggestions received and concerns expressed. The
Ministry of Corporate Affairs has constituted
Companies Law Committee to make recommen-
dations to the Government on issues arising from the
implementation of Companies Act, 2013.
Therefore, all eyes are now on the Committee which
is to review the implementation of the Act.
Compiled by :
CA. Ameet Chheda
CA. Deepesh Chheda
ASSOCIATION
NEWS
FORTH COMING EVENTS
Study Circle Committee has organised Study Circle on Practical Issues in TDS viz Traces
Day & Date: Friday, 16-10-2015
Venue : D.R.Ghalla Memorial Hall, 304, Jasmine Apt; DSP Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014.
Faculty : Shri Selva Gandhi, ITO TDS & his team
Time: 5.30 pm to 8.30pm
Students Committee has organsied Seminar on
E-FILING OF DOCUMENTS WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
Day & Date: Monday 19-10-2015
Venue : D.R.Ghalla Memorial Hall, 304, Jasmine Apt; DSP Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014.
Time: 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm
Fees : Free of Cost
Topic : E-Filing of Documents with Registrar of Companies
Speaker : CS Dhawal Gadda
The Main purpose of this Seminar is to give a brief overview of various filings to be done with the Registrar
of Companies. Since this topic being of current importance to all the CA firms, we sincerely request to
encourgae all the Article Students from your firms to register for this Students Seminar.
Please note that the Registration would be restricted to the first 40 Students on First come Basis. Please
register your names with (Between 11.30 am to 6.00pm)
Vaibhavi - 022-2410 5987 - cvostudentscomm@gmail.com
“But I suppose the most revolutionary act one can engage in is... to tell the truth.”