Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUBMITTED BY:
MD. ABID HUSSAIN ANSARI
B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) 6TH SEMESTER
0|Page
Acknowledgement
Firstly, I would like to express my profound sense of gratitude towards the almighty
ALLAH for providing me with the authentic circumstances which were mandatory for the
completion of my project.
Secondly, I am highly indebted to Prof. Dr. Qazi Usman at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia
Islamia University, New Delhi for providing me with constant encouragement and guidance
throughout the preparation of this project.
Thirdly, I thank the Law library staff who liaised with us in searching material relating to the
project.
My cardinal thanks are also for my parents, friends and all teachers of law department in our
college who have always been the source of my inspiration and motivation without which I
would have never been able to unabridged my project.
My father, a lawyer with large access to books of value has been of great help to me.
Without the contribution of the above said people I could have never completed this project.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to Corporate Law
10
19
19
9. Debentures
24
26
11. Derivatives
26
28
13. Bonds
28
14. Bibliography
37
2|Page
Ronald J. Gilson and Mark J. Roe, Understanding the Japanese Keiretsu: Overlaps Between Corporation
Governance and Industrial Organization, 102 YALE LAW JOURNAL 871 (1993); Mark J. Roe, Some Differences in
Corporation Structure in Germany, Japan, and the United States, 102 YALE LAW JOURNAL 1927 (1993);
Bernard S. Black and John C. Coffee, Hail Britannia? Institutional Investor Behavior under Limited Regulation,
92 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 1997 (1994); COMPARATIVE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: ESSAYS AND MATERIALS
(Klaus J. Hopt and Eddy Wymeersch (eds.), 1997); and Mark J. Roe, POLITICAL DETERMINANTS OF CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE (2003).
3|Page
the corporate entity, and thus lowers the costs of conducting business. Of course, the number
of provisions that the typical corporation statute2 devotes to defining the corporate form is
likely to be only a small part of the statute as a whole. Nevertheless, these are the provisions
that comprise the legal core of corporate law that is shared by every jurisdiction.
Corporation statute to refer to the general law that governs corporations, and not to a corporations
individual charter (or articles of incorporation, as that document is sometimes also called).
4|Page
of the company as we know had taken shape. Sir Francis Palmer described this Act
as the magna carta of co-operative enterprises.
The Companies (Memorandum and Association) Act, 1890 made relaxation with regard to
change in the object clause under the leave of the Court obtained on the basis of special
resolution passed by the members in general meeting. Then the liability of the directors of a
company was introduced by the Directors Liability Act, 1890, and the compulsory audit of
the companys accounts was enforced under the Companies Act, 1900.
The concept of private company was introduced for the first time in the Companies Act,
1908. The earlier ones were called public companies. Two subsequent Acts were passed in
1908 and in 1929 to consolidate the earlier Acts. The Companies Act, 1948 which was the
Principal Act in force in England then was based on the report of a Committee under Lord
Cohen. The Act introduced inter alia another new form of company known as exempt private
company.
Another outstanding feature of the 1948 Act was the emphasis on the public accountability of
the company. Generally recognised principles of accountancy were given statutory force and
had to be applied in the preparation of the balance sheet and profit and loss account. Further,
the 1948 legislation extended the protection of the minority (Section 210) and the powers of
the Board of Trade to order an investigation of the companys affairs (Sections 164175);
and for the first time the shareholders in general meeting were given power to remove a
director before the expiration of his period of office. The independence of auditors vis-a-vis
the directors was strengthened.
The 1948 Act was amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1967. The Amending Act
was based upon the report and recommendations of the Jenkins Committee presented in 1962.
The 1967 Act adopted and considerably extended in some respects, the recommendations of
the Committee as to disclosure. The Act abolished the exempt private company, and required
all limited companies to file accounts. More stringent provisions were imposed in relation to
directors interests in the company and disclosure thereof. The Companies Act, 1976
attempted to remedy a variety of defects which had become evident in the application of the
Acts of 1948 and 1967. The 1976 Act strengthened the requirements of public accountability
and those relating to the disclosure of interests in the shares of the company. The Companies
Act, 1980 was a major measure of company law reform in England. Insider dealing was made
a criminal offence. The shareholders were given a right of pre-emption in the case of new
5|Page
issues of shares in specified circumstances. Dealings between the directors and their
companies became greatly restricted and maximum financial limits were introduced for such
dealings. The protection to the minority shareholders was extended by enabling them to
petition for relief if their position was unfairly prejudiced.
The Companies Act, 1981 introduced other important changes. For the purposes of
accounting and disclosure, companies were divided into small, medium-sized and other
companies and their disclosure requirements were differentiated accordingly. The Law
relating to the names of companies was simplified by the abolition, in principle, of the
approval of the name by the Department of Trade. The company was authorised, subject to
certain conditions, to issue redeemable equity shares and to purchase its own shares. The
1981 Act further abolished the register of business names which had to be kept under the
Registration of Business Names Act, 1916.
Active steps were taken to prepare consolidating measures relating to the Companies Acts
1948 to 1981. In November, 1981, the Department of Trade published a consultative
document entitled Consolidation of Companies Acts. In this document the various methods
of consolidation and their relative advantages for the practice were discussed.
The whole of the existing statute relating exclusively to companies was consolidated in the
Companies Act, 1985, and the Companies Acts 1948 and 1983 repealed by the Companies
Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1985. At the same time two minor
consolidating enactments, the Business Names Act, 1985 and the Company Securities
(Insider Dealing) Act, 1985, were passed to consolidate certain provisions of the Companies
Acts 1980 and 1981, which affected sole traders and partnerships and persons other than
companies as well as companies regulated by the Companies Act, 1985. The whole of the
present statute, therefore, was contained in the Companies Act, 1985 and the two minor
consolidating enactments together with the temporary and transitional provisions of the
Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1985, all of which have come into
force from 1st July, 1985. The U.K. company law has further been amended and has been
substituted by U.K. Companies Act, 2006 (which received Royal Assent on November 8,
2006). The Act has been brought into force in stages and circumscribes enhanced duties of
directors, simpler regime for private companies, increased use of e-communication, enhanced
auditor liabilities etc.
6|Page
7|Page
8|Page
The incorporated company owes its existence either to a special Act of Parliament or to
company legislation. The public corporations like Life Insurance Corporation of India and
Damodar Valley Corporation have been brought into existence through special Acts of
Parliament, whereas companies like Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Reliance Industries Limited
have been formed under the Companys Legislation i.e. Companies Act, 1956. The trading
partnership which is governed by Partnership Act is the most apt example of an
unincorporated association. In the legal sense, a company is an association of both natural
and artificial persons incorporated under the existing law of a country. In terms of the
Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956) a company means a company formed and
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under the previous laws relating to companies"
[Section 3(1)(ii)]. In common law, a company is a - legal person or legal entity separate
from, and capable of surviving beyond the lives of its members. However, an association
formed not for profit acquires a corporate life and falls within the meaning of a company by
reason of a licence under Section 25(1) of the Act.
But a company is not merely a legal institution. It is rather a legal device for the attainment of
any social or economic end. It is, therefore, a combined political, social, economic and
legal institution. Thus, the term company has been described in many ways. It is a means
of cooperation and organisation in the conduct of an enterprise. It is an intricate,
centralised, economic and administrative structure run by professional managers who hire
capital from the investor(s). Lord Justice James has defined a company as an
association of many persons who contribute money or moneys worth to a common stock and
employ it in some trade or business and who share the profit and loss arising therefrom. The
common stock so contributed is denoted in money and is the capital of the company. The
persons who form it, or to whom it belongs, are members. The proportion of capital to which
each member is entitled is his share. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that a
company has its own corporate and legal personality distinct and separate from that of its
members. A brief description of the various attributes is given here to explain the nature and
characteristics of the company as a corporate body.
9|Page
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Shri Sam Nath Dass AIR 2000 SCW 139
(1897) A.C. 22
10 | P a g e
In the case, Salomon had, for some years, carried on a prosperous business as leather
merchant and boot manufacturer. He formed a limited company consisting of himself, his
wife, his daughter and his four sons as the shareholders, all of whom subscribed for 1 share
each so that the actual cash paid as capital was 7. Salomon sold his business (which was
perfectly solvent at that time), to the Company for the sum of 38,782. The companys
nominal capital was 40,000 in 1 shares. In part payment of the purchase money for the
business sold to the company, debentures of the amount of 10,000 secured by a floating
charge on the companys assets were issued to Salomon, who also applied for and received an
allotment of 20,000 1 fully paid shares. The remaining amount of 8,782 was paid to
Salomon in cash. Salomon was the managing director and two of his sons were other
directors.
The company soon ran into difficulties and the debenture holders appointed a receiver and the
company went into liquidation. The total assets of the company amounted to 6050, its
liabilities were 10,000 secured by debentures, 8,000 owning to unsecured trade creditors,
who claimed the whole of the companys assets, viz., 6,050, on the ground that, as the
company was a mere alias or agent for Salomon, they were entitled to payment of their
debts in priority to debentures. They further pleaded that Salomon, as principal beneficiary,
was ultimately responsible for the debts incurred by his agent or trustee on his behalf. It was
held that When the memorandum is duly signed and registered, though there be only seven
shares taken, the subscribers are a body corporate capable forthwith of exercising all the
functions of an incorporated company. It is difficult to understand how a body corporate thus
created by statute can lose its individuality by issuing the bulk of its capital to one person.
The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers of the
memorandum; and though it may be that after incorporation the business is precisely the
same as before, the same persons are managers, and the same hands receive the profits, the
company is not in law their agent or trustee. The statute enacts nothing as to the extent or
degree of interest which may be held by each of the seven or as to the proportion of interest,
or influence possessed by one or majority of the shareholders over others. There is nothing in
the Act requiring that the subscribers to the memorandum should be independent or
unconnected, or that they or any of them should take a substantial interest in the
undertakings, or that they should have a mind or will of their own, or that there should be
anything like a balance of power in the constitution of company.
11 | P a g e
In case of Lee v. Lees Air Farming Ltd.5, The above case illustrates the application of the
principles established in Salomons case (supra). In this case, a company was formed for the
purpose of aerial top-dressing. Lee, a qualified pilot, held all but one of the shares in the
company. He voted himself the managing director and got himself appointed by the articles
as chief pilot at a salary. He was killed in an air crash while working for the company. His
widow claimed compensation for the death of her husband in the course of his employment.
The company opposed the claim on the ground that Lee was not a worker as the same person
could not be the employer and the employee. The Privy Council held that Lee and his
company were distinct legal persons which had entered into contractual relationships under
which he became the chief pilot, a servant of the company. In his capacity of managing
director he could, on behalf of the company, give himself orders in his other capacity of pilot,
and the relationship between himself, as pilot and the company, was that of servant and
master. Lee was a separate person from the company he formed and his widow was held
entitled to get the compensation. In effect the magic of corporate personality enabled him
(Lee) to be the master and servant at the same time and enjoy the advantages of both.
The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Re. Kondoli Tea Co. Ltd.6 recognised the
principle of separate legal entity even much earlier than the decision in Salomon v. Salomon
& Co. Ltd. case. Certain persons transferred a Tea Estate to a company and claimed
exemptions from ad valorem duty on the ground that since they themselves were also the
shareholders in the company and, therefore, it was nothing but a transfer from them in one
name to themselves under another name. While rejecting this Calcutta High Court observed:
The Company was a separate person, a separate body altogether from the shareholders and
the transfer was as much a conveyance, a transfer of the property, as if the shareholders had
been totally different persons.
In case of New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India,7 The experience of a shareholder of a
company can be regarded as experience of a company. The tender of the company, New
Horizons Ltd., for publication of telephone directory was not accepted by the Tender
Evaluation Committee on the ground that the company had nothing on record to show that it
had the technical experience required to be possessed to qualify for tender. On appeal the
rejection of tender was upheld by the Delhi High Court.
5
12 | P a g e
The judgement of the Delhi High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court which observed
as under:
Once it is held that NHL (New Horizons Ltd.) is a joint venture, as claimed by it in the
tender, the experience of its various constituents namely, TPI (Thomson Press India Ltd.),
LMI (Living Media India Ltd.) and WML (World Media Ltd.) as well as IIPL (Integrated
Information Pvt. Ltd.) had to be taken into consideration, if the Tender Evaluation
Committee had adopted the approach of a prudent business man.
Seeing through the veil covering the face of NHL, it will be found that as a result of reorganisation in 1992 the company is functioning as a joint venture wherein the Indian
group (TPI, LMI and WML) and Mr. Aroon Purie hold 60% shares and the Singapore
based company (IIPL) hold 40% shares. Both the groups have contributed towards the
resources of the joint venture in the form of machines, equipment and expertise in the
field. The company is in the nature of partnership between the Indian group of companies
and Singapore based company who has jointly undertaken this commercial enterprise
wherein they will contribute to the assets and share the risk. In respect of such a joint
venture company, the experience of the company can only mean the experience of the
constituents of the joint venture i.e. the Indian group of companies (TPI, LMI and WML)
and the Singapore based company (IIPL)8.
2. Limited Liability
The privilege of limited liability for business debts is one of the principal advantages of doing
business under the corporate form of organisation. The company, being a separate person, is
the owner of its assets and bound by its liabilities. The liability of a member as shareholder
extends to contribution to the assets of the company up to the nominal value of the shares
held and not paid by him. Members, even as a whole, are neither the owners of the
companys undertakings, nor liable for its debts. In other words, a shareholder is liable to pay
the balance, if any, due on the shares held by him, when called upon to pay and nothing more,
even if the liabilities of the company far exceed its assets. This means that the liability of a
member is limited. For example, if A holds shares of the total nominal value of Rs. 1,000 and
has already paid Rs. 500/- (or 50% of the value) as part payment at the time of allotment, he
cannot be called upon to pay more than Rs. 500/-, the amount remaining unpaid on his shares.
8
New Horizons Ltd. and another v. Union of India; (1995) 1 Comp. LJ 100 SC
13 | P a g e
If he holds fully-paid shares, he has no further liability to pay even if the company is declared
insolvent. In the case of a company limited by guarantee, the liability of members is limited
to a specified amount mentioned in the memorandum.
Buckley, J. in Re. London and Globe Finance Corporation,9 has observed: The statutes
relating to limited liability have probably done more than any legislation of the last fifty
years to further the commercial prosperity of the country. They have, to the advantage of the
investor as well as of the public, allowed and encouraged aggregation of small sums into
large capitals which have been employed in undertakings of great public utility largely
increasing the wealth of the country.
There are, however, some statutory exceptions to the principle of limited liability. As
provided by Section 45 of the Companies Act, 1956, the members become personally liable if
the membership falls below prescribed minimum and the business is carried on for more than
six months thereafter. It is also provided in the Act vide Section 323 that a limited company
may, if so authorised by its articles, alter its memorandum by special resolution so as to
render the liability of its directors or of any of its director or manager as unlimited. Further,
where in the course of winding up it appears that any business of the company has been
carried on with intent to defraud creditors, the Court may declare the persons who were
knowingly parties to the transaction as personally liable without limitation of liability for all
or any of the debts/liabilities of the company.
3. Perpetual Succession
An incorporated company never dies except when it is wound up as per law. A company,
being a separate legal person is unaffected by death or departure of any member and remains
the same entity, despite total change in the membership. A companys life is determined by
the terms of its Memorandum of Association. It may be perpetual or it may continue for a
specified time to carry on a task or object as laid down in the Memorandum of Association.
Perpetual succession, therefore, means that the membership of a company may keep changing
from time to time, but that does not affect its continuity.
The membership of an incorporated company may change either because one shareholder has
transferred his shares to another or his shares devolve on his legal representatives on his
death or he ceases to be a member under some other provisions of the Companies Act. Thus,
9
14 | P a g e
perpetual succession denotes the ability of a company to maintain its existence by the
constant succession of new individuals who step into the shoes of those who cease to be
members of the company. Professor L.C.B. Gower rightly mentions, Members may come
and go, but the company can go on forever. During the war all the members of one private
company, while in general meeting, were killed by a bomb, but the company survived not
even a hydrogen bomb could have destroyed it.
4. Separate Property
A company being a legal person and entirely distinct from its members, is capable of owning,
enjoying and disposing of property in its own name. The company is the real person in which
all its property is vested, and by which it is controlled, managed and disposed of. Their
Lordships of the Madras High Court in R.F. Perumal v. H. John Deavin,10 held that no
member can claim himself to be the owner of the companys property during its existence or
in its winding-up. A member does not even have an insurable interest in the property of the
company.
Also in case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay11,
The Supreme Court in this case held that, though the income of a tea company is entitled to
be exempted from Income-tax up to 60% being partly agricultural, the same income when
received by a shareholder in the form of dividend cannot be regarded as agricultural income
for the assessment of income-tax. It was also observed by the Supreme Court that a
shareholder does not, as is erroneously believed by some people, become the part owner of
the company or its property; he is only given certain rights by law, e.g., to receive or to attend
or vote at the meetings of the shareholders. The court refused to identify the shareholders
with the company and reiterated the distinct personality of the company.
5. Transferability of Shares
The capital of a company is divided into parts, called shares. The shares are said to be
movable property and, subject to certain conditions, freely transferable, so that no
shareholder is permanently or necessarily wedded to a company. When the joint stock
companies were established, the object was that their shares should be capable of being easily
10
11
15 | P a g e
transferred,12 Section 82 of the Companies Act, 1956 enunciates the principle by providing
that the shares held by the members are movable property and can be transferred from one
person to another in the manner provided by the articles. If the articles do not provide
anything for the transfer of shares and the Regulations contained in Table A in Schedule I
to the Companies Act, 1956, are also expressly excluded, the transfer of shares will be
governed by the general law relating to transfer of movable property.
A member may sell his shares in the open market and realise the money invested by him.
This provides liquidity to a member (as he can freely sell his shares) and ensures stability to
the company (as the member is not withdrawing his money from the company). The Stock
Exchanges provide adequate facilities for the sale and purchase of shares.
Further, as of now, in most of the listed companies, the shares are also transferable through
Electronic mode i.e. through Depository Participants instead of physical transfers.
6. Common Seal
On incorporation, a company acquires legal entity with perpetual succession and a common
seal. Since the company has no physical existence, it must act through its agents and all such
contracts entered into by its agents must be under the seal of the company. The Common Seal
acts as the official signature of a company. The name of the company must be engraved on its
common seal. A rubber stamp does not serve the purpose. A document not bearing common
seal of the company is not authentic and has no legal force behind it.
The person authorised to use the seal should ensure that it is kept under his personal custody
and is used very carefully because any deed, instrument or a document to which seal is
improperly or fraudulently affixed will involve the company in legal action and litigation.
12
[In Re. Balia and San Francisco Rly., (1968) L.R. 3 Q.B. 588]
16 | P a g e
Hence, the company is entitled to sue for damages in libel or slander as the case may be13. A
company, as a person separate from its members, may even sue one of its own members for
libel.
A company has a right to seek damages where a defamatory material published about it,
affects its business. Where video cassettes were prepared by the workmen of a company
showing, their struggle against the companys management, it was held to be not actionable
unless shown that the cassette would be defamatory. The court did not restrain the exhibition
of the cassette14. The company is not held liable for contempt committed by its officer.15
8. Contractual Rights
A company, being a separate legal entity different from its members, can enter into contracts
for the conduct of the business in its own name. A shareholder cannot enforce a contract
made by his company; he is neither a party to the contract nor entitled to the benefit of it, as a
company is not a trustee for its shareholders.
Likewise, a shareholder cannot be sued on contracts made by his company. The distinction
between a company and its members is not confined to the rules of privity, however, it
permeates the whole law of contract. Thus, if a director fails to disclose a breach of his duties
to his company, and in consequence a shareholder is induced to enter into a contract with the
director which he would not have entered into had there been disclosure, the shareholder
cannot rescind the contract. Similarly, a member of a company cannot sue in respect of torts
committed against the company, nor can he be sued for torts committed by the company16.
Therefore, the company as a legal person can take action to enforce its legal rights or be sued
for breach of its legal duties. Its rights and duties are distinct from those of its constituent
members.
9. Limitation of Action
A company cannot go beyond the power stated in the Memorandum of Association. The
Memorandum of Association of the company regulates the powers and fixes the objects of
the company and provides the edifice upon which the entire structure of the company rests.
13
Floating Services Ltd. v. MV San Fransceco Dipaloa (2004) 52 SCL 762 (Guj)
TVS Employees Federation v. TVS and Sons Ltd., (1996) 87 Com Cases 37
15
Lalit Surajmal Kanodia v. Office Tiger Database Systems India (P) Ltd., (2006) 129 Comp Cas 192 Mad
16
British Thomson-Houston Company v. Sterling Accessories Ltd., (1924) 2 Ch. 33
14
17 | P a g e
The actions and objects of the company are limited within the scope of its Memorandum of
Association. In order to enable it to carry out its actions without such restrictions and
limitations in most cases, sufficient powers are granted in the Memorandum of Association.
But once the powers have been laid down, it cannot go beyond these powers unless the
Memorandum of Association is itself altered prior to doing so.
10.Separate Management
As already noted, the members may derive profits without being burdened with the
management of the company. They do not have effective and intimate control over its
working and elect their representatives to conduct corporate functioning. In other words, the
company is administered and managed by its managerial personnel.
12.Termination of Existence
A company, being an abstract and artificial person, does not die a natural death. It is created
by law, carries on its affairs according to law throughout its life and ultimately is effaced by
law. Generally, the existence of a company is terminated by means of winding up. However,
to avoid winding up sometimes companies change their form by means of re-organisation,
reconstruction and amalgamation. To sum up, a company is a voluntary association for profit
with capital divisible into transferable shares with limited liability, having corporate entity
and a common seal with perpetual succession.
18 | P a g e
[(I a) derivative;
[(id) units or any other such instrument issued to the investors under any
mutual fund scheme;]
2. Government securities; and (ii a) such other instruments as may be declared by the
Central Government to be securities; and
3. rights or interests in securities;
19 | P a g e
1. Equity Shares:
The equity shares or ordinary shares are those shares on which the dividend is paid after the
dividend on fixed rate has been paid on preference shares.
Equity shares, commonly referred to as ordinary share also represents the form of fractional
ownership in which a shareholder, as a fractional owner, undertakes the maximum
entrepreneurial risk associated with a business venture. The holder of such shares are member
of the company and have voting rights. A company may issue shares with differential rights
as to voting, payment of dividend etc.
Equity capital and further issues of equity capital by a company are generally based on the
condition that they will rank pari passu along with the earlier issued share capital in all
respects. However, as regards dividend declared by the company such additional capital shall
be entitled to dividend ratably for the period commencing from the date of issue to the last
day of the accounting year, unless otherwise specified in the articles or in the terms of the
issue.
Important characteristics of equity shares are given below:
1. Equity shares, other than non-voting shares, have voting rights at all general meetings of
the company. These votes have the effect of the controlling the management of the
company.
2. Equity shares have the right to share the profits of the company in the form of dividend
(cash) and bonus shares. However even equity shareholders cannot demand declaration of
dividend by the company which is left to the discretion of the Board of Directors.
3. When the company is wound up, payment towards the equity share capital will be made
to the respective shareholders only after payment of the claims of all the creditors and the
preference share capital.
4. Equity share holders enjoy different rights as members such as:
a. right of pre-emption in the matter of fresh issue of capital (Section 81)
b. right to apply to the court to set aside variations of their rights to their detriment
(Section 107)
c. right to receive a copy of the statutory report before the holding of the statutory
meeting by public companies (Section 165)
20 | P a g e
d. right to apply to Central Government to call for the Annual General Meeting, if
the company fails to call such a meeting (Section 167)
e. right to apply to Company Law Board for calling for an extra-ordinary general
meeting of the company (Section 186)
f. right to receive annual accounts along with the auditors report, directors report
and other information (Section 210, 217 & 219).
[The rights mentioned at 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 4(e) and 4(f) are also available to the preference
shareholders. The right of pre-emption in the matter of fresh issue of capital is available only
to the equity shareholders vide Section 81(1)(a)]. Equity shareholders, other than non-voting
shares are entitled to voting rights in all matters, whereas preference shareholders are entitled
to voting rights if the assured dividend to which they are entitled has been in arrears for a
specified period.
In the normal course where there is no dividend in arrears to be paid to them they have no
voting rights except in a class meeting convened for preference shareholders for specific
purposes.
Characteristics:
At the time of liquidation, capital on equity is paid after preference shares have been
paid back in full.
Non-redeemable.
Equity shareholders have voting rights & thus, control the working of the Company.
5. Preference Shares:
Preference shares are those shares which carry with them preferential rights for their holders,
i.e, and preferential right as to fixed rate of dividend & as to repayment of capital at the time
of winding up of the Company. Owners of this kind of shares are entitled to a fixed dividend
or dividend calculated at a fixed rate to be paid regularly before dividend can be paid in
respect of equity shares. They also enjoy privity over the equity shareholders in payment of
surplus. But in the event of liquidation their claims rank below the claims of companys
creditors, bondholders/debenture holders.
21 | P a g e
Characteristics:
According to The Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988, the preference shares are
redeemable & the maximum period for which they can be issued is 10 years.
Cumulative Preference Shares: They are those shares on which the dividend at a fixed
rate goes on cumulating till it is all paid.
Non-Cumulative Preference Shares: These are those shares on which the dividend
does not cumulate.
Convertible preference shares: The owners of these shares have the option to convert
their preference shares into equity shares as per the terms of issue.
Non-convertible preference shares: The owners of these shares do not have any right
of converting their shares into equity shares.
Redeemable preference shares: These are to be purchased back by the company after
a certain period as per the terms of issue.
Irredeemable preference shares: These are not to be purchased back by the company
during its lifetime.
Status of Preference Shares, if Articles of Association are silent: Preference shares will be
presumed to be:
22 | P a g e
Cumulative
Non-Participating
Irredeemable and
Non-Convertible
6. Deferred Shares:
Deferred shares are those shares on which the payment of dividend and capital (at the time of
winding up of a company) is made after money is paid in full on preference shares and equity
shares. As per the provisions of the COMPANIES ACT, 1956, no public company can issue
deferred shares.
Characteristics:
Rate of dividend is not fixed. It depends upon the availability of profits & the
discretion of the Board of the Directors.
At the time of liquidation, capital on these shares is returned after capital is repaid on
both preference & equity shares.
Share Capital refers to the amount that a company can raise or has raised by issue of shares.
From accounting point of view, share capital can be classified as follows:
1. Authorized share Capital is stated in the Memorandum of association and is the
maximum share capital that a company can issue.
2. Issued share Capital is a part of share capital that is issued for subscription by the
company. It cannot exceed companys authorized share capital.
3. Subscribed share Capital is a part of issued share capital, which is applied for
subscription.
4. Called-up share capital is the amount of nominal value of share that has been called
up by the company for payment by the subscribers towards the shares.
5. Paid up Capital is a part of called up capital that the members of the company
have paid.
Calls-in- arrears are that part of the called up capital that remains unpaid by the subscribers.
23 | P a g e
Calls-in-advance- a company, if its articles of association permit, may receive the unpaid
amount from the shareholders even when the amount has not been called. The amount so
received is known as Calls-in-advance.
Shares Issued For Consideration Other Than Cash
Sometimes companies also issue shares for consideration other than cash such as against
purchase of land and buildings, plant and machinery or purchase of business, etc. The
purchases of an asset against the issue of shares are two distinct transactions.
Forfeiture of Shares
Forfeiture of shares means canceling the shares for non-payment of calls due as a final action
against the defaulting shareholders. The company must give a clear 14 days notice to the
defaulting shareholder that unless he pays the amount due together with interest, if any, by
the specified date, the shares are liable to be forfeited. If the shareholder still does not pay,
the company may forfeit them by passing an appropriate resolution. On forfeiture, the shares
are cancelled; to that extent the share capital is reduced but the amount already paid by the
shareholders is not returned to him it is forfeited. Of course, the account showing the
unpaid call is also cancelled by a credit.
Hybrid instruments: Hybrid instruments are those which are created by combining the
features of equity with bond, preference and equity etc. Examples of Hybrid instruments are:
Convertible preference shares, Cumulative convertible preference shares, non-convertible
debentures with equity warrants, partly convertible debentures, partly convertible debentures
with Khokha (buy-back arrangement), Optionally convertible debenture, warrants convertible
into debentures or shares, secured premium notes with warrants etc.
Debentures
Section 2(12) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines debentures as follows:
Debenture includes debenture stock, bonds and any other securities of a company, whether
constituting a charge on the assets of the company or not.
Debenture is a document evidencing a debt or acknowledging it and any document which
fulfills either of these conditions is a debenture. The important features of a debenture are:
1. It is issued by a company as a certificate of indebtedness.
24 | P a g e
2. It usually indicates the date of redemption and also provides for the repayment of
principal and payment of interest at specified date or dates.
3. It usually creates a charge on the undertaking or the assets of the company.
In such a case the lenders of money to the company enjoy better protection as secured
creditors, i.e. if the company does not pay interest or repay principal amount, the lenders may
either directly or through the debenture trustees bring action against the company to realise
their dues by sale of the assets/undertaking earmarked as security for the debt.
Their features are as follows:
a. Naked or unsecured debentures: Debentures of this kind do not carry any charge on
the assets of the company. The holders of such debentures do not therefore have the
right to attach particular property by way of security as to repayment of principal or
interest.
b. Secured debentures: Debentures that are secured by a mortgage of the whole or part of
the assets of the company are called mortgage debentures or secured debentures. The
mortgage may be one duly registered in the formal way or one which is secured by the
deposit of title deeds in case of urgency.
c. Redeemable debentures: Debentures that are redeemable on expiry of certain period
are called redeemable debentures. Such debentures after redemption can be reissued
in accordance with the provisions of Section 121 of the Companies Act, 1956.
d. Perpetual debentures: If the debentures are issued subject to redemption on the
happening of specified events which may not happen for an indefinite period, e.g.
winding up, they are called perpetual debentures.
e. Bearer debentures: Such debentures are payable to bearer and are transferable by mere
delivery. The name of the debenture holder is not registered in the books of the
company, but the holder is entitled to claim interest and principal as and when due. A
bonafide transferee for value is not affected by the defect in the title of the transferor.
f. Registered debentures: Such debentures are payable to the registered holders whose
name appears on the debenture certificate/letter of allotment and is registered on the
companies register of debenture holders maintained as per Section 152 of the
Companies Act, 1956.
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
However, in the case of a company whose equity shares are not listed on any recognised
stock exchange, the sweat equity shares are to be issued in accordance with the guidelines as
may be prescribed. The expression company means company incorporated, formed and
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and includes its subsidiary company incorporated
in a Country outside India.
All the limitations, restrictions and provisions relating to equity shares are also applicable to
such sweat equity shares issued under the new Section 79A.
Derivatives
Derivatives are contracts which derive their values from the value of one or more of other
assets (known as underlying assets). Some of the most commonly traded derivatives are
futures, forward, options and swaps. A brief detail of futures and options are given as under:
Futures
Futures is contract to buy or sell an underlying financial instrument at a specified future date
at a price when the contract is entered. Underlying assets for the purpose include equities,
foreign exchange, interest bearing securities and commodities. The idea behind financial
futures contract is to transfer future changes in security prices from one party in the contract
to the other. It offers a means to manage risk in participating financial market. Futures
basically transfer value rather than create it. It is a means for reducing risk or assuming risk in
the hope of profit. Every futures contract entered into has two side willing buyer and a
willing seller. If one side of contract makes a profit, the other side must make a loss. All
futures market participants taken together can neither lose nor gain, the futures market is a
zero sum game.
For successful futures, two types of participants i.e. hedgers and speculators are essential.
Financial futures contracts may be of various types such as: Interest Rate Futures
Treasury Bill Futures
Euro-Dollar Futures
Treasury Bond Futures
27 | P a g e
17
18
28 | P a g e
It is obvious that the words used in an inclusive definition denote extension and cannot be
treated as restricted in any sense.19 Where we are dealing with an inclusive definition it would
be inappropriate to put a restrictive interpretation upon terms of wider denotation also in
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works of
P.F.X. Saldanha and Sons.20"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Naresh K. Aggarwala and Co. v. Canbank
Financial Services Limited21, while referring to the definition of the term securities
defined under the SCR Act and the applicability of a circular issued by the Delhi Stock
Exchange Limited, observed the following:
20. The contention that the circular did not apply to unlisted securities was duly considered
and rejected by the Special Court. The Special Court thoroughly considered the term
`securities' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act. It reads as under:2(h) Securities include
1. shares, scrips stocks, bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other marketable
securities of a like nature in or of any incorporated company or other body corporate;
A technical reading of the aforesaid definition of securities may lead to an interpretation that
the definition of securities would be limited to marketable securities. This is because the
words other marketable securities of a like nature are of a general nature and hence, it may
apply to all preceding words, namely, shares, scrips, stocks, bonds, debentures and debenture
stock. The definition of securities may, therefore, possibly exclude from its purview shares
in a private limited company.
If the aforesaid interpretation is adopted as per SCRA itself, it would lead to an inadvertent
consequence of limiting the benefit of concessional rate of ten per cent under section 112(1)
(c) of the Act to long term capital gains which arise on transfer of only marketable securities
i.e. of unlisted company being public company and not private company. However, we
believe that restricting the scope of the section only to securities held by non-residents in
public companies cannot be the intention of the legislature.
19
29 | P a g e
As mentioned above, PE funds including VC funds in India primarily invest in private limited
companies. Such investments by PE and VC funds not only provides much needed long term
capital but add value for the investee companies by way of access to technical / financial /
business expertise. VC funds promote new and innovative business models and processes by
providing financial backing to innovative ideas.
[(I a) derivative;
[(id) units or any other such instrument issued to the investors under any
mutual fund scheme;]
2. Government securities; and (ii a) such other instruments as may be declared by the
Central Government to be securities; and
3. rights or interests in securities;
Perusal of the above quoted definition shows that it does not make any distinction between
listed securities and unlisted securities and therefore it is clear that the Circular will apply to
the securities which are not listed on the Stock Exchange.
In Dahiben Umedbhai Patel v. Norman James Hamilton22, the Division Bench of Bombay
High Court while interpreting the above definition of Securities held as follows:
Now, it is difficult for us to accept the argument of the appellants that the definition of
"securities" must be so read that the words "other marketable securities of a like nature"
were not intended to indicate an element of marketability in so far as the preceding
categories were concerned. A reading of the inclusive part of the definition shows that the
22
30 | P a g e
Legislature has enumerated different kinds of securities and by way of a residuary clause
used the words "or other marketable securities of a like nature". The use of these words
was clearly intended to mean that the earlier categories of securities had to be marketable
and any other securities of "like nature", that is to say, like those which were categorized or
enumerated earlier were also to be marketable before they could be held to fall within the
definition of "securities".
The Division Bench further held that, the definition of "securities" will only take in shares
of a public limited company notwithstanding the use of the words "any incorporated company
or other body corporate" in the definition.
In Mathalone v. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd.23, dealing with the rights of a transferee of
shares of a public company, the Supreme Court has pointed out the top on the transfer of
shares, the transferee becomes the sole beneficial owner of those shares sold by the
transferor, the legal title to which is vested in him and the transferor holds the shares for the
benefit of the transferee to the extent necessary to satisfy the elements of s. 94 of the India
trusts Act 1882. It was held that the transferor becomes a trustee of dividends as the
transferee holds the beneficial interest and the transferor is also a trustee of the right to vote
because the right to vote is a right to property annexed to the shares and, as such, the
beneficiary has a right to control the exercise by the trustee of the right to vote. It is pointed
out that the relationship of trustee and cestui que trust arises by reason of the circumstance
that till the name of the transferee is brought on the register of shareholders in order to bring
about a fair dealing between the transferor and the transferee, equity clothes the transferor
with the status of a constructive trustee and this obliges him to transfer all the benefits of
property rights annexed to the sold shares of the cestui que trust.
In B.K. Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Jute Mills24, the learned Single Judge while
interpreting the expression marketable securities held as follows: I see no warrant
whatsoever for limiting the expression marketable securities only to those securities which
are quoted in the stock exchange.
23
24
31 | P a g e
In Mysore Fruit Products Ltd. v. The Custodian25, the learned Single Judge observed and
held as follows:
If one goes through the provisions of the Act, the scheme of the Act makes it clear that no
restrictive interpretation can be placed on the terms used in the Act. If the provisions of the
Act are looked at, it is clear that it relates not merely to securities which are listed but it also
relates to securities which may not be listed in any stock exchange. All that is required is that
there must be marketability. In my view, it cannot be said that any security which is not
listed on any recognized stock exchange is not marketable."
As laid down by the Single Judge and the Division Bench26, marketability implies ease of
selling and includes any security which is capable of being sold in the market. This does not
mean that it must be sold in the market. In view of the above decisions, the legal position as
on date is that the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 are
applicable to the Unlisted Public Companies as well.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan27, in that
decision, in considering Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, it was held that negative,
prohibitory and exclusive words are indicative of the legislative intent when the statute is
mandatory. Negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used as a legislative
device to make a statutory provision imperative. The words shall not register are mandatory
in character. The mandatory character is strengthened by the negative form of the language. It
cannot be said that the provisions contained in Section 108 are directory because noncompliance with the section is not declared an offence. Section 629A of the Act prescribes
the penalty where no specific penalty is provided elsewhere in the Act. It is a question of
construction in each case whether the Legislature intended to prohibit the doing of the act,
altogether, or merely to make the person who did it liable to pay the penalty. The provisions
contained in Section 108 are mandatory.
The Court in the case of BOI Finance v. Custodian28 and A.K. Menon v. Fairgrowth
Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.,29 . On the contrary the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners contended that the forward sale of the shares of F.F.S.L. was not prohibited
25
32 | P a g e
because shares were not listed on the stock exchange. In support of this submission the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Norman J. Hamilton and Anr. v. Umedbhai S. Patel and
Ors,.30 The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dahiben Umedbhai
Patel and Ors. v. Norman James Hamilton and Ors.31, the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. UB Limited and Ors.32, to contend that the
provisions of the Securities Act applies only to those shares which are listed on the stock
exchange. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though the actual sale of the
shares took place on 30th September, 1993, on 8th April, 1992 equitable charge in favour of
the petitioners was created on the amount of Rs. 4,00,10,000/- and therefore even if it is
assumed that the amount on the date of notification of the notified party under the Special
Court Act was the property of the notified party and therefore it gets attached, the attachment
will be subject to the charge of the petitioners. In support of this submission, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat
Nidhi Ltd. v. Takhatmal (Dead) by his Legal Representatives and Anr.33
In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others v. SEBI and another34, The
SUPREME COURT Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara
Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) are the companies controlled by Sahara
Group. Both companies, with the approval of the Board of the respective companies, issued
Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCD) by way of private placement to friends,
associates, group companies, workers/employees and other individuals associated/affiliated
or connected in any manner with the group of companies without giving any advertisement to
general public. Both companies authorized their Board of Directors to decide the terms and
conditions and revision thereof, namely, face value of each OFCD, minimum application
size, tenure, conversion and interest rate. They did not intend to get their securities listed on
any recognized stock exchange. The funds raised by the company would be utilised for the
purpose of financing the acquisition of townships, residential apartments, shopping
complexes etc., SIRCEL: floated the issue of the OFCDs as an open ended scheme and
collected an amount of Rs. 19400, 86, 64,200 from 25.04.2008 to 13.04.2011 from 2, 21,
30
33 | P a g e
07,271 investors. Likewise SHICL floated the issue of OFCDs and collected a huge amount
from huge investors. SEBI initiated action against the companies on a complaint received
from investors that the debentures were issued without complying with SEBI Rules etc., the
companies contended that SEBI is having no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint on
unlisted securities and it was not a public issue.
The issue whether derivatives are commodity or not have been subject matter of numerous
decisions rendered by ITAT and High Court. For e.g., in Comfund Financial Services (I)
Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax35, it was held that shares and securities and also
units of UTI should also be considered as commodity are they are not only useful things but
also articles of trade in as much as they can be purchased and sold quite easily. They are also
material things which can be given and taken physical delivery of. In this case the argument
given was English judgment in the case of Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain and
Ireland) Ltd., passed by the High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division) dated 22 and 25th
January, 1943 and by the Court of Appeal dated 8 June, 1943 as reported at 25 T.C. 292. In
the said judgment, Lord Greene, M.R. observed as below:
"That being so, what is the true analysis of the position? A manufacturer has provided him
with a commodity, namely, dollars. I call dollars a 'commodity' not for the reason that they
are not currency in this country, but because they have a characteristic which is common to
other commodities, and is not shared by sterling namely, that their value from day to day
varies in terms of sterling, just in the same way as coal, or bricks, or anything else may do."
In Paramount Bio-Tech Industries v. Union of India,36 the court of law decided that 2(h)
includes bonds within the definition of the word 'security'.
In Gramercy Emerging Market Fund vs Essar Steel Limited37 Since it is only now that it is
being held that though the petitioners are creditors and, therefore, the petitions would be
maintainable, but the trustee is a necessary party and that in the absence of the trustee the
petitions could be dismissed, the petitioners are required to be given an opportunity to rectify
this defect and, therefore, sometime is required to be given to join the trustee as a party. After
the trustee is joined as a party respondent in these petitions, the court will on the next date of
hearing consider the question of applicability of condition No. 13 (enforceability) in light of
35
36
37
[1997] 67 ITD304
on 25 November, 2003: 2004 120 Comp Cas 18 All, (2004) 2 Comp L J 446 All, 2004 49 SCL 77 All
on 20 March, 2002: 2002 111 CompCas 1 Guj
34 | P a g e
the stand which may be taken up by the trustee and/or depending on the petitioners' holding
in the value of the notes outstanding as indicated above.
In Timken France Sas v. Director Of Income-Tax38, that in respect of the long-term capital
gain arising from the sale of original and bonus shares of NRB Ltd. the applicant is entitled to
the benefit of the first proviso to Section 112(1) and, therefore, the quantum of tax payable
shall not exceed 10 per cent of the amount of capital gain. Accordingly, the ruling is
pronounced.
In Sahara India Commercial Corp. v. Department Of Income Tax39, when the issue as to
whether or not the OFCDs of the assessee are 'loans' covered u/s 269SS of the IT Act has
been decided in favour of the assessee as above, the question of the assessee having been
prevented by reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the IT Act for not
complying with the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, no longer survives. For the
preceding discussion, the grievance sought to be raised by the department by way of its
Ground No.2, is rejected. Accordingly, the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the penalty
imposed on the assessee under Section 271D of the IT Act is confirmed.
In Shri Mahesh J. Patel vs The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax40, There is no dispute
that period of holding required for share is 12 months or more whereas in case of other than
share i.e. for 'right to do business' along with tenancy right, furniture and telephones, the
period of holding required is 36 months or more. In this case, the holding period of the
assessee is less than 36 months. Hence, it was rightly treated by the CIT (A) in the impugned
order as a short term capita! Asset, and profits therefrom would be assessable under the head
"short term capital profits"
In Hirenbhai K.Patel, Ahmedabad vs Assessee41, In this case from the statement of income it
has been found that the assessee has claimed the interest exp and the service charges against
the LTCG. But the same cannot be claimed since these claims are not available against the
capital gain as per the Act. And from the careful analysis of the balance sheet and the P & L
a/c, it is clear that the assessee has invested the funds on the securities. In the assessment
order, the income from the other sources arising from these securities have been added in the
hands of the assessee therefore these claims have not been disallowed since against such
38
on 1 October, 2007: 2008 BusLR 60, (2007) 212 CTR AAR 347
on 30 September, 2010; ITA No.5772/Del/2010
40
on 18 July, 2007: 2007 109 ITD 35 Mum, 2008 297 ITR 74 Mum, (2007) 111 TTJ Mum 468
41
on 5 December, 2012, ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2006
39
35 | P a g e
income these exp can be claimed. However, if any view is taken otherwise than the additions
made as interest income in the head income from other sources, then this exp cannot be
allowed to the assessee. The reason of this is that in that case, it will be the finding of the
undersigned that the assessee has invested its interest bearing funds in earning such income
which is exempt from the tax, because the same is in the form of dividends; or the income
from these funds is capital gain against which such claims are not available to the assessee,
then such exp cannot be allowed in the light of sec.14A of I.T. Act. Total such interest exp
are Rs.20, 72,915/- and the service charges are Rs.3, 15,000/-"
36 | P a g e
Bibliography
1. A Comparative Study of Companies Act 2013 and Companies Act 1956
Institute of
37 | P a g e