Sunday, October 26, 2014

[aaykarbhavan] source Business standard and The Hindu




Why one- person firms are popular


DEEPAK PATEL

Recently, Delhi- basedbusinessman AnkurSharmaregisteredhistour& travelservicesfirmasaone- person company( OPC)." Rightnow, mypriorities aretogetthebusinessstartedattheearliest.

Iplantomakeitaprivatelimitedcompany in six- eight months," he says. As a registeredlegalentityundertheOPCcategory, separate from its owner, Sharma will have easier access to bank loans and less compliance under the different provisionsoftheCompaniesAct, withliability limited to the entity's net worth. OPCs help start- up entrepreneurs test a business model, a product or a service, before attracting new investors.

Since April this year, when the concept of OPC was introduced in the Companies Act, 2013, 479 firms have been registered as OPCs ( as of August 31), data available with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs show. Through April and May, only 10 companies were registered.

As the concept gained momentum, about 450 companies were registered between June and August, 68 per cent from the services sector." This concept is really beneficial for small entrepreneurs who can benefit from limited liability. We are happy OPC ( registrations) are picking up," said a senior ministry official.

The Companies Act envisaged OPCs as an alternative to the ' soleproprietorship' form of business. In a May newsletter, the ministry said of OPCs, " It is expected this model will encourage small and medium enterprises… in the unorganised sector with the concept of limited liability and open avenues for more favourable banking facilities." In India, 70- 80 per cent of business entities operate in the unorganised sector and follow a non- entity model of proprietorship company, says

Balamurugan Nadar, founder, bmcgroup.

in, which helps companies register themselves. Most of these are likely to be registered as OPCs, he adds. There are many entrepreneurs who, after starting sole- proprietorship companies, are yet to graduate to a private limited company for want of more shareholders. This section will opt for the OPC model, experts say.

Though the provisions applicable to private limited companies hold good for OPCs, too, OPCs are relieved of procedural formalities such as conducting annual general meetings and meetings of boards of directors. " The OPC concept gives the dual benefit of limited liability as a corporate entity, as well the freedom to operate as a soloprenuer," says Nadar. It allows owners to have control over the company by appointing as many as 15 directors. Also, it could help companies attract talent by offering directorship designations, which isn't possible under the sole- proprietorship model.

Experts say the OPC model supports the start- up ecosystem by allowing companies to test their business models. " As people become more aware of the benefits of an OPC, I expect a lot of start- ups to go with the OPC tag from 2016," says Saran Kumar Uppalapati, partner, SBS and Company LLP. With the government's focus on start- ups, OPCs are expected to be the popular choice.

Lowawareness

While most players consider the rising number of OPCs a positive trend, corporate lawyers and tax experts caution the awareness about this concept is still low. Experts say an outreach programme by the ministry in this regard is the need of the hour. Syed Perwez Hussain from Svans and Associates says: " It is difficult for any company to explain the term OPC in a sale proposal contract or to create a profile with OPC attached to its name. So, people still opt for the tag of private limited company." Start- ups, always on the lookout for investment, have to change their legal status to a private limited company before bringing in investors, says

Agam Gupta, co- founder, quickcompany. in.

Many start- ups with OPC tags told Business Standard they would convert to private limited ones, as and when investors showed interest. They admitted having an OPC tag was a stopgap measure to kick- start the business and test the model. " Right now, I can take my own decisions and there are less norms to follow. But in case some investor is looking, I will convert my company to a private limited one," said Kashinath Kapte, founder, Yuvaskills Services Private Ltd ( OPC).

According to the Companies Act, an OPC has to covert itself into a private or public limited company in case its paid- up capital exceeds ₹ 50 lakh, or average annual turnover exceeds ₹ 2 crore, for the three immediate preceding consecutive years.

"It does not take much time to covert from an OPC to a private limited company," says Gupta.

While registering as private limited companies and sole- proprietorship firms might still be the most attractive option for most entrepreneurs, many corporate law experts feel through the next two years, the number of OPCs will exceed that of private companies. For this, the government will have to step up awareness about OPCs and, at the same time, encourage sole- proprietorship firms to convert to OPCs.

Though these are early days, the government will have to raise awareness of the benefits of such companies

One- person company

|Separate legal entity |Limited liability |Perpetual succession |Loan: Not the sole responsibility of the owner |Registration required |Finance: Credit record of the OPC

Sole proprietorship

|Not a separate legal entity |Unlimited liability |No perpetual succession |Loans: Sole responsibility of the owner |Registration not required |Finance: Credit record of the owner

Exemptions available to OPC under the Companies Act, 2013

|AGMs | Meetings of board of directors HOW THEY STACK UP

OPC essentials

|Paid- up equity: Less than ₹ 50,00,000 |Turnover: Average annual turnover less than ₹ 2 crore ( for three preceding consecutive years) |One- person company: One member and at least one director |Private company: At least two members and two directors |Public company: At least seven members and three directors

 

BRIEF CASE


Directors in the dock when cheque bounces

Directors of companies could be dragged to magistrate's court in cheque bouncing cases if the complaint merely asserts that they were "in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed". Whether such a bald statement would enmesh directors in criminal proceedings was the core question in the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case, Gunmala Sales Ltd vs Navkar Infra Projects Ltd.

Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act make it punishable to issue a cheque without sufficient balance in the bank account. Gunmala filed a complaint against Navkar when a few cheques issued by the latter bounced. The magistrate initiated proceedings against the drawer firm and directors. They moved the Calcutta High Court, which quashed the complaint as it contained only a "bald suggestion" that the four directors were in charge of the day to day affairs of the company, with no further details to support the claim. When Gunmala appealed to the Supreme Court, it asked the high court to reconsider its judgment. According to the apex court if the accused director moves the high court to quash the complaint, the high court can refuse to accede to the request " because the complaint contains the basic averment which is sufficient to make out a case against the director." The high court can also quash the complaint if it is made as part of "arm- twisting tactics". However, it should have " unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt. Such cases may be few and far between." The high court, in all circumstances, must prevent abuse of judicial process. Overall, directors have the onus to show that they were not involved in the offence.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil disputes in criminal cloak

The Supreme Court has stated that civil disputes related to tenders should not be allowed to be cloaked as criminal cases to harass successful bidders and public servants. " The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with ulterior motive to pressurise accused persons," the court stated in its judgment, Rajib Ranjan vs R Vijaykumar. In this case, the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board invited tenders for work at Hasedeo Thermal Power Station. The offer of M/ s Control Electronics India was rejected on the ground that the plant erected by it at Patratu Thermal Power Station, Jharkhand, was not functioning well. The firm therefore moved a civil suit and failed. Then it filed a criminal complaint alleging that the authorities had conspired with the winning party and forged documents. The magistrate issued summons to the electricity board authorities. They appealed to the Jharkhand High Court for quashing the complaint on various grounds. But the high court dismissed their pleas. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court decision and quashed the complaint. It observed: " We get an uncanny feeling that the complaint with allegations are a postscript after losing the battle in civil proceedings challenging the action of the department in rejecting his tender. When he did not succeed in the said attempt, he came out with the allegations of forgery."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Element of gamble in judicial discretion

When judges differ drastically in assessing loss due to injuries in road accidents, only the persistent litigant who dares to move appeals wins a fair and just amount. In the case, Basappa vs T Ramesh, decided by the Supreme Court last fortnight, Basappa who was riding a bike was hit by a bus driven rashly by Ramesh. The motor accident claims tribunal awarded young Basappa a mere ₹ 93,000 for his head injuries and surgery which left him incapacitated by 58 per cent. He could no longer do any heavy work and suffered life- time disability. He appealed to the Karnataka High Court which raised the amount to ₹ 2.6 lakh and asked Reliance General Insurance to pay it. The high court felt that the medical estimate of 58 per cent disability of the youth was " exaggerated" and fixed it at 25 per cent. On further appeal, the Supreme Court raised it to ₹ 6.72 lakh. It estimated his physical disability at 85 per cent and raised the interest on the compensation to 9per cent instead of 6 per cent decided by courts below.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tender struck down for favouritism

The Bombay High Court has struck down the award of contract to light up Aurangabad city to Elektron Lighting Systems Ltd, holding that the decision of the corporation was arbitrary. Two rival bidders for the project, Shah Investments and Polycab Wires Ltd, had challenged the selection process as they were disqualified from participating in the bids. The high court stated that the decision taken by the corporation, especially the commissioner, was " vitiated on account of non- transparency, change in the terms of the contract, showing extraordinary favour to Elektron and offering benefits without making financial assessment and above all, an extremely hasty decision by the commissioner even after receipt of orders of transfer." Though the court would normally not interfere in commercial matters, " we are of the considered opinion that in order to safeguard public interest, interference is necessary to be caused in the hasty decision taken by the corporation. Apart from the decision being hasty, it is taken without being mindful of the consequences and with a view to suit the financial interests of the chosen firm only," the judgment said.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pharma firm told to change name

The Delhi High Court has granted injunction as sought by pharma major Sanofi India Ltd against Universal Neutraceuticals on the allegation that its trade mark and trade dress have been copied by the latter. The trademark in dispute was ' Universal', which was widely used by Sanofi for its pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products. Some trade dresses for packaging and strips were also allegedly copied by the rival firm. It was further alleged that Universal company's board of directors was constituted entirely by individuals who are spouses of the ex- employees of Sanofi. The use of the trade mark by the rival firm would confuse consumers of medical products, it was argued. On the contrary, the other firm contended that Universal was a common name in commercial market and no exclusivity could be assigned to it. The high court stated that without injunction, Sanofi will suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, Universal Neutraceuticals was prohibited from using the trade name Universal or any other deceptively similar mark till further orders. The court also asked it to change its corporate and trade name within amonth.

Source  The  Hindu

 

New law proposed for small factories

ANUMEHA YADAV

 

 

The Labour Ministry has proposed the Small Factories (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Services) Bill to govern wages and conditions of work in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The Bill envisages rules for wages, overtime hours, social security and appointment of factory inspectors in units employing fewer than 40 workers.

While the government introduced the Factories Act (Amendment) Bill, 2014 in the Lok Sabha in August, the new Bill has been proposed to align the work conditions in the SMEs with the Factories Act amendments and allow enterprises to file compliance forms online as the government announced earlier this month.

"There was a demand from the SME sector for a separate Act to govern them. In line with that, this Act will reduce the number of forms required for compliance with rules. It will allow the SMEs to employ women in night shifts based on the fulfilment of certain conditions. It will change the inspection system to one based on self-certification and inspections based on computer lots as announced by the government earlier this month," a senior Labour Ministry official says.

The Bill builds on the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Amendment Bill, 2011, which increases the number of laws under which units will be exempt from maintaining registers and filings returns, he adds.

The Factories Act (Amendment) Bill is for allowing the States to raise the minimum number of workers employed to 20 where power was used and 40 for others, from 10 and 20, respectively. Based on the suggestions in a June 2011 report by an expert committee under former Planning Commission member Narendra Jadhav, the Bill removes prohibitions on women working on certain machines in motion and near cotton openers and allows the State governments to make rules allowing women to work night shifts in factories upon fulfilling certain conditions. It doubled the permissible overtime hours from 50 hours in one quarter to 100 hours and from 75 hours to 125 hours in certain cases.

"The Small Factories Bill will bring the SMEs, which account for over 30 per cent of industrial production, in line with the amendments to the Factories Act," an official says.

The Ministry has invited public comments over the next 30 days. After the finalisation of the Bill, it will be sent to the Union Cabinet before being introduced in Parliament.

 

--




A.Rengarajan
Practising  Company  Secretary
Chennai


Mobile 93810  11200

"
LET  US  SUPPORT  COMPANY  SECRETARY  BENEVOLENT  FUND  FOR  COMMON  CAUSE




__._,_.___

Posted by: CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@gmail.com>


receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com





__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment