Corporate Professionals Blog

As per the provisions of Section 45I of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956/ Companies Act, 2013 which is engaged in the business of acquisition of shares/bonds/debentures/securities or other marketable securities like leasing, hire-purchase, insurance business, chit business, loans and advances is considered as a Non-Banking Financial Company (“NBFC”). Similarly, a company engaged in the business of receiving deposits under a scheme or arrangement of lump sum or instalments (by way of contributions or any other manner) is also included under the ambit of the NBFC. All the NBFCs are required to obtain Certificate of Registration (“CoR”) under Section 45-IA of RBI Act. Mr. Pankaj Singla Sr. Associate +919971508320 pankaj@indiacp.com The reason behind such requirement of obtaining CoR is to keep the financial activities of NBFCs under a check through disclosure requirements. However, the requirement of obtaining...

The management of the newly incorporated Companies or the Companies opting for diversification generally believes in the practice of inducing the best executives and employees who bring in their know-how, skill and technical expertise that ultimately results in augmenting the business value of the enterprise. Ms. Anjali Aggarwal Vice President +919971673336 anjali@indiacp.com Nowadays, Organisations are using value enhancing mechanisms to inculcate a feeling among key professionals to undertake tasks independently as Entrepreneurs that would not only result in their own professional development but would also leads to enhancement in their personal wealth. Such value enhancing mechanisms involves issuance of shares for their hard work and contribution in the form of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), know-how, skill and technical expertise. The shares issued to such employees (either at a discounted price or against the know-how contributed) are, in legal parlance be term...

Facts: M/s. E-Ally Consulting (India) Private Limited, M/s. Shree Jaisal Electronics and Industries Limited, Mr. Sandeep Maloo, Mrs. Neeta Maloo, Mr. Labhchand Maloo, Mrs. Lata Maloo, Sandeep Maloo HUF, Labhchand Maloo HUF (“Appellants”) had delayed inmaking disclosures as required under Regulation 30(1) and 30(2) read with 30(3) of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 by 15 days. Accordingly SEBI imposed a penalty of Rs. 3, 00,000 for the aforesaid violations on the Appellants. Being aggrieved by the direction of SEBI, the Appellants have filed the appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal and contended that:

Mr. Santhosh J. Karimattom (“Applicant”), is one of the promoter of M/s. Cityman Limited (“Target Company”) had voluntarily filed the consent application in respect of delay in compliance of Regulation 6(3) for the year 1997, 7(1) for the year 2010 and 8(2) for the year 1998 to 2009 of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 1997. It was observed by Internal Committee that the Target Company had settled delayed compliance of Regulation 6(2), 6(4) and 8(3) of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 1997 by settlement order dated 4th April, 2013 and three promoters of Company had settled Regulation 3(3), 3(4), 6(3), 7(1A), 8(2) and 10 of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 1997 by settlement order 28th June, 2013. Internal Committee observed that only the delay from December 27, 2010 to January 07, 2012 in filing requisite disclosure under Regulation 7(1) of SEBI (SAST) Regulation, 1997 remains to be settled. Further Committee also observed that the delay under Regulation 13(1) and 13(4) of SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 1992 is also...