CS SEEMA SHARMA
9830790075
GOODS & SERVICES TAX
Friends! As far as I can see it, GST will be a pivotal point for the Indian economy at large. After independence, it can be considered to be one of the greatest move which can indubitiously provide a significant boost to the investment & growth of our economy. The first country to introduce GST was France and now everyone is following suit.
GST will have a material impact on almost all aspects of businesses operating in the country, including the supply chain, sourcing and distribution decisions, inventory costs and cash flows, pricing policy, accounting and IT systems and transactions management.
In order to prepare for the GST, we need to understand its full implications, make and test the system changes and prepare a roadmap for a smooth transition to GST.
While the important dimensions of the new tax structure are being put under the scanner, the time is ripe for the businesses to start making preparations for a successful changeover and implementation.
WHAT IS GST?
The indirect tax regime in India is proposed to be replaced by a comprehensive dual GST with Central GST and State GST to be levied concurrently by the Centre and the States.
GST would replace most indirect taxes currently in place. The tax base is anticipated to be comprehensive, including virtually all goods and services, with minimum exemptions.
Following the destination principle, GST structure would include imports while exports would be zero-rated. For inter-State transactions in India, the State tax would apply in the State of destination as opposed to that of origin.
Full input credit system would operate in parallel for CGST and SGST, however, cross utilization of input tax credit between CGST and SGST would not be permitted.
GST will have a far reaching impact on virtually all aspects of businesses operating in the country, for instance, pricing of products and services; supply chain optimization; IT, accounting and tax compliance systems.
As the nomenclature denotes the goods and service tax is integrated in GST for set off benefit of input tax credit.
The prime reason for the introduction of GST is to avoid the cascading effect of taxes in India.
Benefits of GST
1. GST provide comprehensive and wider coverage of input credit setoff, you can use service tax credit for the payment of tax on sale of goods etc.
2. CST will be removed and need not pay. At present there is no input tax creditavailable for CST.
3. Many indirect taxes in state and central level subsumed by GST, You need to pay a single GST instead of all.
4. Uniformity of tax rates across the states
5. Ensure better compliance due to aggregate tax rate reduces.
6. By reducing the tax burden the competitiveness of Indian products in international market is expected to increase and there by development of the nation.
7. Prices of goods are expected to reduce in the long run as the benefits of less tax burden would be passed on to the consumer.
8. Overall tax compliance cost will reduce for government and can concentrate on GST.
On application of the GST, it is recommended that the following Central Taxes should be, to begin with, subsumed under the Goods and Services Tax:
(i) Central Excise Duty
(ii) Additional Excise Duties
(iii) The Excise Duty levied under the Medicinal and Toiletries Preparation Act
(iv)Service Tax
(v) Additional Customs Duty, commonly known as Countervailing Duty (CVD)
(vi)Special Additional Duty of Customs - 4% (SAD)
(vii) Surcharges, and
(viii) Cesses.
Following State taxes and levies would be, to begin with, subsumed under GST:
(i) VAT / Sales tax
(ii) Entertainment tax (unless it is levied by the local
bodies).
(iii) Luxury tax
(iv) Taxes on lottery, betting and gambling.
(v) State Cesses and Surcharges in so far as they
relate to supply of goods and services.
(vi) Entry tax not in lieu of Octroi.
HAPPY READING!!!
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Settled Principles of Law Vs. Company Law - Author Durga Rao
Understanding settled principles of law is very very important while presenting or pursuing a case before a Court of law, Board or any Tribunal. Keeping into mind the object of the enactment, the subject, the societal scenario etc. our Courts settled certain principles and the same are to be followed by all Courts or Tribunals unless overruled by the Competent Court or by a larger bench. There is a principle in Criminal Law that an offence should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and an innocent should not be punished. It is an example and the Courts had laid down many principles and certain principles are inherent in the enactment itself.
Though, it did not invite much attention, the application of principles of Civil Law and the Criminal Law occupies greater significance while interpreting the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 or dealing with company matters. It can be found with the in-depth consideration into various principles laid down by the Constitutional Courts while interpreting the provisions of the Act or disposing the company matters. There exist certain settled principles based on sound logic. For example, the principle of Res subjudice is supported by the sound logic that the same issue can not be agitated before two competent forums simultaneously which if allowed there will simultaneous findings on the same issue. If that principle is applied mechanically while entertaining the company matters, then, the powers of the Company Law Board earlier and now the Tribunal under section 397/398 of the Act would become meaningless. The same will be the position while the company court dealing with a winding-up matter.
Again, if the principle of Res Judicata is applied to the company matters, then, the Company Law Board earlier and the Tribunal now would do nothing when a minority shareholder approaches the Board or the Tribunal seeking such preventive and remedial measures under section 397/398 of the Act. Normally, when a statute refers to certain procedure to be followed in respect of a particular matter, then, the same is to be followed. The summary suit will never get dismissed on the ground that it is not possible to decide the issues referred to in the summary suit. But, there is a proposition under the Company Law that the disputed facts can not be decided in a company application by the Board which follows the summary procedure. Again, if the criminal law principles are applied intact to an offence under the provisions of the companies Act, then, it can be extremely difficult to punish a person for the committal of various offences under the provisions of the Act. Thus, many issues under the provisions of the companies act warrant in-depth consideration and a general rule can’t be laid down. It is due to its nature, sensitivity and vastness of the subject, the study of the company law and doing company matters will always remain complicated warranting comprehensive understanding of the principles of company law. The law may get simplified and incorporation of company may become as simple as it can. Even then, the basic features of a company and the right of the members may not change and the litigation before courts or the Tribunal in future in respect of companies may be inevitable. Though, the list of principles laid down by the courts can’t be put in nutshell and can’t be effectively concluded the broader issue of “application of civil and criminal law principles to the company matters” is to be carefully understood. Again, not only the principles, certain issues/provisions/aspects under the company law are very significant. For example, the issue of deciding the disputed facts, looking at the intention aspect while dealing with the offences under the Act, the debt recovery proceedings and the provisions of company law, the nature of proceedings under section 542, the scope of section 633 etc. needs to be understood and concentrated as the same will give an understanding about the significance and complication of company law.
Though, it did not invite much attention, the application of principles of Civil Law and the Criminal Law occupies greater significance while interpreting the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 or dealing with company matters. It can be found with the in-depth consideration into various principles laid down by the Constitutional Courts while interpreting the provisions of the Act or disposing the company matters. There exist certain settled principles based on sound logic. For example, the principle of Res subjudice is supported by the sound logic that the same issue can not be agitated before two competent forums simultaneously which if allowed there will simultaneous findings on the same issue. If that principle is applied mechanically while entertaining the company matters, then, the powers of the Company Law Board earlier and now the Tribunal under section 397/398 of the Act would become meaningless. The same will be the position while the company court dealing with a winding-up matter.
Again, if the principle of Res Judicata is applied to the company matters, then, the Company Law Board earlier and the Tribunal now would do nothing when a minority shareholder approaches the Board or the Tribunal seeking such preventive and remedial measures under section 397/398 of the Act. Normally, when a statute refers to certain procedure to be followed in respect of a particular matter, then, the same is to be followed. The summary suit will never get dismissed on the ground that it is not possible to decide the issues referred to in the summary suit. But, there is a proposition under the Company Law that the disputed facts can not be decided in a company application by the Board which follows the summary procedure. Again, if the criminal law principles are applied intact to an offence under the provisions of the companies Act, then, it can be extremely difficult to punish a person for the committal of various offences under the provisions of the Act. Thus, many issues under the provisions of the companies act warrant in-depth consideration and a general rule can’t be laid down. It is due to its nature, sensitivity and vastness of the subject, the study of the company law and doing company matters will always remain complicated warranting comprehensive understanding of the principles of company law. The law may get simplified and incorporation of company may become as simple as it can. Even then, the basic features of a company and the right of the members may not change and the litigation before courts or the Tribunal in future in respect of companies may be inevitable. Though, the list of principles laid down by the courts can’t be put in nutshell and can’t be effectively concluded the broader issue of “application of civil and criminal law principles to the company matters” is to be carefully understood. Again, not only the principles, certain issues/provisions/aspects under the company law are very significant. For example, the issue of deciding the disputed facts, looking at the intention aspect while dealing with the offences under the Act, the debt recovery proceedings and the provisions of company law, the nature of proceedings under section 542, the scope of section 633 etc. needs to be understood and concentrated as the same will give an understanding about the significance and complication of company law.
Evidentiary value of minutes under section 195 and 211; an analysis - Author Durga Rao
Section 195 of Companies Act, 1956 says that where minutes of the proceedings of any general meeting of the company or of any meeting of its Board of directors or of a committee of the Board have been kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193, then, until the contrary is proved, the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held, and all proceedings thereat to have duly taken place, and in particular, all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid. While referring to the section the following issues deserve consideration.
(1) How to construe the wording kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193?
(2) Significance of reference to the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held?
(3) How to construe the wording all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid.
(4) Whether the conclusiveness can be attributed to the minutes?
(5) How to see the difference between the presumption under the section and the conclusiveness to the chairmans findings?
(6) How to construe the presumptive nature of the minutes etc. under the section?
How to construe the wording kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193?
Though the section refers to section 193 with regard to the manner in which minutes are to be recorded, the section 193 is to be carefully understood under the section. Because, section 193 not only deals with the time limit, signatures, page numbers, separate books etc. but, also refers to fairness. There may be cases wherein the minutes are disputed immediate to the knowledge. In such cases, is it correct to hold that the presumption under section 195 is available even when the correctness of minutes is questioned immediately? The answer can be yes. The reference to section 193 to be looked from procedural point of view and technicalities should not be placed. If it is proved that the minutes are prima facie recorded, signed, maintained in separate books without any pasting and overwriting and consecutively number, then, thats enough for applying the rule of presumption under section 195. Irrespective of the nature of challenge and time thereof, if it is prima facie proved that the minutes are recorded in accordance with section 193, then, presumption under section 195 is available. The challenge to the recording of minutes in accordance with section 193 should not be viewed technically. It is all about the procedure.Dealing the reference to section 193 under the section, the Madras High Court, in V.G.Balasundaram and others Vs. New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Private Limited and others (1993) 77 Comp Cas 324, was pleased to refer/observe that section 193 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that every company shall cause minutes of all proceedings of every general meeting of its board of directors or of every committee of the board to be kept by making within thirty days of the conclusion of every such meeting concerned, entries thereof in books kept for that purpose with their pages consecutively numbered. If the presumption is not available under section 193, presumption under section 195 is also not available.
Significance of reference to the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held?
The reference to the wording the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held is really significant and based on the sound logic. Because, unless there is a due call or calling in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it can not be held that the meeting is validly held. The question of validity of minutes etc. will normally arise only when the meeting is called in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If we see the issue of preemption of minutes under the section and calling of meeting on two different footings, then, there is chance of recording the meetings without any due call. As such, the calling, holding, conducting and the recording of minutes thereof, can not be separated and it is a process with the ultimate object of transacting the business at the meeting. As such, it is to be understood that the reference to the wording that the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held is on sound logical footing.
How to construe the wording all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid:
With the reference to the wording presumption in the title to the section and with the usage of the word valid with regard to the appointments under the section, it appears to be that the same is some what ambiguous. Does the section conveys that once the director is appointed as recorded in the minutes, then, such an appointment should not be questioned.The answer is No.On any ground whatsoever, the conclusiveness should not be attributed to the appointments. If the appointment of directors etc. is not correct or is not in accordance with provisions of the Act, then, certainly such an appointment is invalid and liable to questioned and set aside. As such, the usage of the word valid under the section to be understood and construed with due reference to the dominant rule of presumption under the section. As such, the reference to the wording all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid to be understood as all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be presumed to be valid until contrary is proved.
Whether the conclusiveness can be attributed to the minutes?
Conclusiveness can not be attributed to the minutes prima facie on any ground what so ever. While referring to the evidentiary value, often the words like prima facie evidence, rebuttable presumption, irrebuttable presumption and conclusiveness are heard. While the words prima facie evidence and rebuttbale presumption stands some what on the same footing, the irrebuttabel presumption and the conclusiveness stands on similar footing. Under company law, generally, there is no place for rule of conclusiveness. Many issues under the Act will have only presumptive value and subject to rebuttal.
How to see the difference between the presumption under the section and the conclusiveness to the chairmans findings?
The conclusiveness attributed to the chairmans findings to be viewed very carefully while dealing with the presumption available to the minutes of the company under the section. There exists an apparent overlapping of principles as referred.It can be argued that if the chairmans findings are conclusive, then, the recording of chairmans findings too, be conclusive. But, such an argument can not be accepted on any ground whatsoever. The chairmans findings too will have only presumptive value subject to rebuttal though the provision expressly confers conclusiveness to the minutes of the company or the Board. The issues need to be carefully understood.
How to construe the presumptive nature of the minutes etc. under the section?
Referring to the issue of construed to be placed on the section, the Madras High Court, in Yamuna Reddy Vs. B.Sivaraman and others, (1992) 75 Comp Case 199, was pleased to observe that under section 195 of the Companies Act, 1956, where the minutes of the proceedings of the company are duly recorded and signed, a presumption is drawn that the meeting has been duly called, held and all proceedings thereat have duly taken place and the consequent appointments of directors have been validly made. This presumption is rebuttable, but the onus of proof to dislodge the presumption is cast on the person who challenges the resolution or the entering of the minutes on the ground of malpractice or misdeed. The Supreme Court of India, in M.S.Madhusoodhanan and another Vs. Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd. And others (2003) 4 Comp LJ 185 (SC), was pleased to observe that furthermore, under section 194 of the Companies Act, 1956, minutes of meeting kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193 shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein and, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed under section 195 that the meeting of the Board of directors was duly called and held that all proceedings thereat to have duly taken place. The onus was on Mani to disprove that the transfers had not taken place as recorded in the minutes of the Board meeting held on 21 May, 1985, on onus that he has singularly failed to discharge.
(1) How to construe the wording kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193?
(2) Significance of reference to the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held?
(3) How to construe the wording all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid.
(4) Whether the conclusiveness can be attributed to the minutes?
(5) How to see the difference between the presumption under the section and the conclusiveness to the chairmans findings?
(6) How to construe the presumptive nature of the minutes etc. under the section?
How to construe the wording kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193?
Though the section refers to section 193 with regard to the manner in which minutes are to be recorded, the section 193 is to be carefully understood under the section. Because, section 193 not only deals with the time limit, signatures, page numbers, separate books etc. but, also refers to fairness. There may be cases wherein the minutes are disputed immediate to the knowledge. In such cases, is it correct to hold that the presumption under section 195 is available even when the correctness of minutes is questioned immediately? The answer can be yes. The reference to section 193 to be looked from procedural point of view and technicalities should not be placed. If it is proved that the minutes are prima facie recorded, signed, maintained in separate books without any pasting and overwriting and consecutively number, then, thats enough for applying the rule of presumption under section 195. Irrespective of the nature of challenge and time thereof, if it is prima facie proved that the minutes are recorded in accordance with section 193, then, presumption under section 195 is available. The challenge to the recording of minutes in accordance with section 193 should not be viewed technically. It is all about the procedure.Dealing the reference to section 193 under the section, the Madras High Court, in V.G.Balasundaram and others Vs. New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Private Limited and others (1993) 77 Comp Cas 324, was pleased to refer/observe that section 193 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that every company shall cause minutes of all proceedings of every general meeting of its board of directors or of every committee of the board to be kept by making within thirty days of the conclusion of every such meeting concerned, entries thereof in books kept for that purpose with their pages consecutively numbered. If the presumption is not available under section 193, presumption under section 195 is also not available.
Significance of reference to the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held?
The reference to the wording the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held is really significant and based on the sound logic. Because, unless there is a due call or calling in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it can not be held that the meeting is validly held. The question of validity of minutes etc. will normally arise only when the meeting is called in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If we see the issue of preemption of minutes under the section and calling of meeting on two different footings, then, there is chance of recording the meetings without any due call. As such, the calling, holding, conducting and the recording of minutes thereof, can not be separated and it is a process with the ultimate object of transacting the business at the meeting. As such, it is to be understood that the reference to the wording that the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held is on sound logical footing.
How to construe the wording all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid:
With the reference to the wording presumption in the title to the section and with the usage of the word valid with regard to the appointments under the section, it appears to be that the same is some what ambiguous. Does the section conveys that once the director is appointed as recorded in the minutes, then, such an appointment should not be questioned.The answer is No.On any ground whatsoever, the conclusiveness should not be attributed to the appointments. If the appointment of directors etc. is not correct or is not in accordance with provisions of the Act, then, certainly such an appointment is invalid and liable to questioned and set aside. As such, the usage of the word valid under the section to be understood and construed with due reference to the dominant rule of presumption under the section. As such, the reference to the wording all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid to be understood as all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be presumed to be valid until contrary is proved.
Whether the conclusiveness can be attributed to the minutes?
Conclusiveness can not be attributed to the minutes prima facie on any ground what so ever. While referring to the evidentiary value, often the words like prima facie evidence, rebuttable presumption, irrebuttable presumption and conclusiveness are heard. While the words prima facie evidence and rebuttbale presumption stands some what on the same footing, the irrebuttabel presumption and the conclusiveness stands on similar footing. Under company law, generally, there is no place for rule of conclusiveness. Many issues under the Act will have only presumptive value and subject to rebuttal.
How to see the difference between the presumption under the section and the conclusiveness to the chairmans findings?
The conclusiveness attributed to the chairmans findings to be viewed very carefully while dealing with the presumption available to the minutes of the company under the section. There exists an apparent overlapping of principles as referred.It can be argued that if the chairmans findings are conclusive, then, the recording of chairmans findings too, be conclusive. But, such an argument can not be accepted on any ground whatsoever. The chairmans findings too will have only presumptive value subject to rebuttal though the provision expressly confers conclusiveness to the minutes of the company or the Board. The issues need to be carefully understood.
How to construe the presumptive nature of the minutes etc. under the section?
Referring to the issue of construed to be placed on the section, the Madras High Court, in Yamuna Reddy Vs. B.Sivaraman and others, (1992) 75 Comp Case 199, was pleased to observe that under section 195 of the Companies Act, 1956, where the minutes of the proceedings of the company are duly recorded and signed, a presumption is drawn that the meeting has been duly called, held and all proceedings thereat have duly taken place and the consequent appointments of directors have been validly made. This presumption is rebuttable, but the onus of proof to dislodge the presumption is cast on the person who challenges the resolution or the entering of the minutes on the ground of malpractice or misdeed. The Supreme Court of India, in M.S.Madhusoodhanan and another Vs. Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd. And others (2003) 4 Comp LJ 185 (SC), was pleased to observe that furthermore, under section 194 of the Companies Act, 1956, minutes of meeting kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193 shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein and, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed under section 195 that the meeting of the Board of directors was duly called and held that all proceedings thereat to have duly taken place. The onus was on Mani to disprove that the transfers had not taken place as recorded in the minutes of the Board meeting held on 21 May, 1985, on onus that he has singularly failed to discharge.
Debt Recovery Laws - an understanding - by Durga Rao
Most of us and the companies approach Banks and Financial Institutions for loans. The reason for the loan may differ from person to person and company to company. All Banks should function in accordance with the guidelines/norms issued by the Banker’s Bank ‘The Reserve Bank of India’. Subject to the lending norms of Reserve Bank of India, the banks and financial institutions sanction loans for different purposes. Though, the Banks and Financial Institutions can lend money even without security, normally, the Banks and Financial Institutions insist for security for the repayment of loan. The fixed assets, receivables etc. can be securities acceptable to the Banks and Financial Institutions for sanctioning the loans. The loan entitlements, the procedure for sanctioning the loan, the security issues etc., are exclusively governed by the guidelines/norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Again, loan, being an agreement or understanding between the Bank and the borrower, the general laws like Law of Contract, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, Specific Performance etc., are applicable to all banking transactions depending upon the nature of transaction. The prime objective of Bank is to receive deposits and use those deposits efficiently so as to make money. The Banks will also render certain specific services on behalf of its customers. The Reserve Bank of India will issue guidelines and norms considering the policy of the Government too. Exercising control over flow of money from Banks and Financial Institutions, the Reserve Bank of India promotes the balanced growth. The Reserve Bank of India can contain inflation through certain measures and it is a financial measure to contain inflation as everybody knows.
When a borrower fails to repay the money to the Bank, what the Bank can do for recovering the loan is to file a civil suit earlier. We all know the issue of delay in rendering justice in traditional civil courts and with the inevitable delay, the Banks could not recover its dues effectively and it resulted in liquidity problems. Bank pays interest to the deposit holders; however, the Banks could not make money by using the deposits as the recovery gets delayed frequently. This led the government to appoint various committees for financial sector reforms. The concentration was on effective recovery by the Banks and Financial Institutions apart from other things.
Thus, a need has arisen to constitute special tribunals for recovery of debts by the Banks and Financial Institutions. The Government has enacted a law called “The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993” under which Debt Recovery Tribunals were constituted to recover dues by the specified Banks and Financial Institutions. The RDDBI Act, 1993 provides Banks and Financial Institutions to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing an application for recovering its due. Only when the amount of due qualifies under the Act, the Banks and Financial Institutions could approach the Debt Recovery Tribunals under RDDBI Act, 1993. When the Bank approaches the Tribunal for recovery, then, the Tribunal will look into the claim made by the Bank in accordance with the procedure prescribed under RDDBI Act, 1993 and finally passes an award. The award can be executed by the Bank.
Despite constituting special Tribunals like Debt Recovery Tribunals under RDDBI Act, 1993, the Banks could not recover its dues to the extent expected. This led to further reforms in the process and curtailing the delay in adjudication.
In furtherance of financial reforms and extending the object of RDDBI Act, 1993, the Government has enacted “The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002”. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is to curtail the delay in the process of adjudication between the Banks and its borrowers. The question of recovery by the Banks and Financial Institutions will arise when the borrowers commit default in repaying the debt. When there is default, then, the Banks will categorize the account as “Non-performing Asset” in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India.
The main difference between RDDBI Act, 1993 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 is as follows:
1. The RDDBI Act, 1993 enables the Bank to approach the Tribunals when the debt exceeds the prescribed limit.
2. Under RDDBI Act, 1993, the Debt Recovery Tribunal will adjudicate the amount due and passes the final award.
3. The SAFAESI Act, 2002 provides a procedure wherein the Bank or Public Financial Institution itself will adjudicate the debt. Only after adjudication by the Bank, the borrower is given right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
4. The Banks or Financial Institutions can invoke the provisions of SAFAESI Act, 2002 only in respect of secured assets and not all.
Thus, under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Banks are given powers under section 13 to carryout the adjudication exercise. The procedure is as follows:
a. The Bank or Financial Institution gives a notice under section 13 (2) to the defaulting borrower whose account was categorized as “NPA”.
b. The borrower who receives the notice under section 13 (2), can send his objections to the Bank’s claim within the time limit.
c. The Bank shall consider the objections and however, it need not pass any order after considering the objections. This enables the Bank to correct itself if it is wrong in the process of adjudication. When the Bank feels that the objections are not tenable, then, the Bank can take possession of the secured asset by issuing a notice under section 13 (4). When it comes to taking possession of the property, there are two things like taking symbolic possession and taking actual possession.
d. Steps under section 13 (4), gives the borrower a right to file an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 and further appeal to the Debt Recovery Appeal Tribunal under section 18.
e. Not only the borrower, any person who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Bank under section 13 of the Act, can approach the Tribunal in accordance with the procedure.
f. Initially, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates to deposit certain amount before filing an appeal. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 and its validity was under challenge before the Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Act, however, reduced the amount of deposit to be made before filing an Appeal under section 17.
g. The Bank will sell the secured asset if it is not prevented by any order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal or any competent court.
While it all appears to be simple, there is lot of criticism on this SARFAESI Act, 2002. The criticism is that it is being misused by the Banks and Financial Institutions. In the course, we had to consider the following aspects:
a) Whether a borrower can approach the High Court challenging the action taken by the Bank or Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
b) Whether it is right to say that the provisions are being misused.
c) Whether the Borrowers’ right to protect the wrong doing is secured and effective remedy is provided.
Answering the first issue is very difficult. The High Court exercises extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Again, the courts say that as the alternative remedy is available under the Act itself, the High Court will not have jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect of SARFAESI proceedings. But, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the Act and there can’t be any straight answer as to whether the High Court can be approached questioning the action taken by the Banks or the Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
I have seen many cases and at times, it appears to me that the Act is being misused. But, it can’t be a justification to say that the Act oppresses the borrowers. It’s a special and balancing Act with very good objective and it is to be implemented well. In view of many transactions and issues, the Banks and Financial Institutions may commit some mistakes in the course and it gives rise to the Borrower to approach the Tribunal seeking stay of proceedings etc. What happens normally is that, the borrower gives a request to the Bank seeking to allow him to settle the account under “One Time Settlement Scheme”. Depending upon the norms prescribed by the RBI, the Banks may accept for “One Time Settlement Scheme” or may not.
In many cases, the borrower ignores the Bank notice under section 13 (2) and then, approaches the Tribunal when the Bank takes steps to take possession of the Property and takes step to sell the same. It is not right. When the notice under section 13 (2) is received, then, the borrower has to make detailed objections if any, as otherwise, his appeal under section 17 of the Act may not sustain normally.
Thus, the borrowers are to be careful when the Bank exercises its powers under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and with the expert guidance and assistance; they can protect their rights effectively.
Note:
My intention is to give a brief as to how to Debt Recovery Laws are to be understood and complicated issues are not touched at all.
When a borrower fails to repay the money to the Bank, what the Bank can do for recovering the loan is to file a civil suit earlier. We all know the issue of delay in rendering justice in traditional civil courts and with the inevitable delay, the Banks could not recover its dues effectively and it resulted in liquidity problems. Bank pays interest to the deposit holders; however, the Banks could not make money by using the deposits as the recovery gets delayed frequently. This led the government to appoint various committees for financial sector reforms. The concentration was on effective recovery by the Banks and Financial Institutions apart from other things.
Thus, a need has arisen to constitute special tribunals for recovery of debts by the Banks and Financial Institutions. The Government has enacted a law called “The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993” under which Debt Recovery Tribunals were constituted to recover dues by the specified Banks and Financial Institutions. The RDDBI Act, 1993 provides Banks and Financial Institutions to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing an application for recovering its due. Only when the amount of due qualifies under the Act, the Banks and Financial Institutions could approach the Debt Recovery Tribunals under RDDBI Act, 1993. When the Bank approaches the Tribunal for recovery, then, the Tribunal will look into the claim made by the Bank in accordance with the procedure prescribed under RDDBI Act, 1993 and finally passes an award. The award can be executed by the Bank.
Despite constituting special Tribunals like Debt Recovery Tribunals under RDDBI Act, 1993, the Banks could not recover its dues to the extent expected. This led to further reforms in the process and curtailing the delay in adjudication.
In furtherance of financial reforms and extending the object of RDDBI Act, 1993, the Government has enacted “The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002”. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is to curtail the delay in the process of adjudication between the Banks and its borrowers. The question of recovery by the Banks and Financial Institutions will arise when the borrowers commit default in repaying the debt. When there is default, then, the Banks will categorize the account as “Non-performing Asset” in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India.
The main difference between RDDBI Act, 1993 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 is as follows:
1. The RDDBI Act, 1993 enables the Bank to approach the Tribunals when the debt exceeds the prescribed limit.
2. Under RDDBI Act, 1993, the Debt Recovery Tribunal will adjudicate the amount due and passes the final award.
3. The SAFAESI Act, 2002 provides a procedure wherein the Bank or Public Financial Institution itself will adjudicate the debt. Only after adjudication by the Bank, the borrower is given right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
4. The Banks or Financial Institutions can invoke the provisions of SAFAESI Act, 2002 only in respect of secured assets and not all.
Thus, under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Banks are given powers under section 13 to carryout the adjudication exercise. The procedure is as follows:
a. The Bank or Financial Institution gives a notice under section 13 (2) to the defaulting borrower whose account was categorized as “NPA”.
b. The borrower who receives the notice under section 13 (2), can send his objections to the Bank’s claim within the time limit.
c. The Bank shall consider the objections and however, it need not pass any order after considering the objections. This enables the Bank to correct itself if it is wrong in the process of adjudication. When the Bank feels that the objections are not tenable, then, the Bank can take possession of the secured asset by issuing a notice under section 13 (4). When it comes to taking possession of the property, there are two things like taking symbolic possession and taking actual possession.
d. Steps under section 13 (4), gives the borrower a right to file an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 and further appeal to the Debt Recovery Appeal Tribunal under section 18.
e. Not only the borrower, any person who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Bank under section 13 of the Act, can approach the Tribunal in accordance with the procedure.
f. Initially, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates to deposit certain amount before filing an appeal. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 and its validity was under challenge before the Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Act, however, reduced the amount of deposit to be made before filing an Appeal under section 17.
g. The Bank will sell the secured asset if it is not prevented by any order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal or any competent court.
While it all appears to be simple, there is lot of criticism on this SARFAESI Act, 2002. The criticism is that it is being misused by the Banks and Financial Institutions. In the course, we had to consider the following aspects:
a) Whether a borrower can approach the High Court challenging the action taken by the Bank or Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
b) Whether it is right to say that the provisions are being misused.
c) Whether the Borrowers’ right to protect the wrong doing is secured and effective remedy is provided.
Answering the first issue is very difficult. The High Court exercises extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Again, the courts say that as the alternative remedy is available under the Act itself, the High Court will not have jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect of SARFAESI proceedings. But, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the Act and there can’t be any straight answer as to whether the High Court can be approached questioning the action taken by the Banks or the Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
I have seen many cases and at times, it appears to me that the Act is being misused. But, it can’t be a justification to say that the Act oppresses the borrowers. It’s a special and balancing Act with very good objective and it is to be implemented well. In view of many transactions and issues, the Banks and Financial Institutions may commit some mistakes in the course and it gives rise to the Borrower to approach the Tribunal seeking stay of proceedings etc. What happens normally is that, the borrower gives a request to the Bank seeking to allow him to settle the account under “One Time Settlement Scheme”. Depending upon the norms prescribed by the RBI, the Banks may accept for “One Time Settlement Scheme” or may not.
In many cases, the borrower ignores the Bank notice under section 13 (2) and then, approaches the Tribunal when the Bank takes steps to take possession of the Property and takes step to sell the same. It is not right. When the notice under section 13 (2) is received, then, the borrower has to make detailed objections if any, as otherwise, his appeal under section 17 of the Act may not sustain normally.
Thus, the borrowers are to be careful when the Bank exercises its powers under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and with the expert guidance and assistance; they can protect their rights effectively.
Note:
My intention is to give a brief as to how to Debt Recovery Laws are to be understood and complicated issues are not touched at all.
Article on Merger and Amalgamation by mr,Durga rao - Important issues pertaining to amalgamations
Section 390 to 395 of Companies Act, 1956 deal with arrangements, amalgamations, mergers and the procedure to be followed for getting the arrangement, compromise or the scheme of amalgamation approved. The business people or the MBA students look at the issue of mergers in a different angle to that of legal professionals. It is very often been criticized by legal professionals that the sections providing for amalgamation etc. are being misused and it may be true to some extent, but, its not wholly true. But, when we discuss the issue of mergers with business people and MBA graduates, then, they talk about business strategies like market penetration strategy etc. Its true that when a company is not doing well and its financial position is weak, then, the Act itself guides the Company to go for settlement with creditors or go for some arrangement instead of winding-up the Company. The Act can not force the company to go for compulsory merger or settlement and it all depends upon the commercial wisdom and viability of a Company. While the Act facilitates the arrangement or settlement with creditors etc. when the Company is not doing well, it is for the creditors and other stake-holders to decide as to whether they agree for settlement etc. or not. The act facilitates arrangement, settlement, amalgamation and merger etc. If it is a private company or a public limited company, the Company has to follow the procedure laid down under the Companies Act apart from the Central Government rules in this regard. If it is a listed public company, then, the company has to comply with the SEBI regulations too and its all in the nature of giving prior relevant information to the stake holders/public or giving further material information when the deal is over.
Dealing with the issue of mergers and amalgamations elaborately is a bigger and complicated affair.
In this article, I would like to deal with, in brief, as to whether it is right to say that the amalgamation provisions as provided in the Act are being misused and the procedure to be followed while getting the scheme of amalgamation approved under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Is it correct to say that the provisions dealing with the arrangement and amalgamations will be useful for the unscrupulous as an escape route?
There is a general assumption that the provisions of Act especially provisions providing for compromise, arrangement or amalgamation, are getting misused. Even though, there is nothing in law even by implication to suggest that the provisions will get misused, it is general thought that the persons charged with will take the plea that the application has been filed for sanctioning the scheme and the proceedings will automatically get abated. Law is very clear in this regard that the criminal proceedings against the persons connected with the affairs of the company will not get abated just because an application seeking sanction of scheme is filed or scheme is being implemented. Only the proceedings, to some extent, sought to be stayed when a scheme is filed and implemented. It is based on the logic that if the civil proceedings are going on simultaneously when the scheme is being approved, then, the scheme could not be worked out. Dealing with the same, the High Court of Bombay, in State of Tamilnadu Vs. Uma Investments Pvt. Ltd (1977) 47 Com Cases 242, was pleased to observe that “it is in respect of these classes of creditors that a proposal is put forward by the company for a compromise or arrangement. The compromises or arrangements are, therefore, concerned with civil liabilities where a creditor will accept a lesser payment or receive less on distribution or grant time or waive interest and work out other kindred things. It is not possible to take the view that section 391 is meant for freezing criminal proceedings which may be instituted either by a creditor or a member of a company or by the State either against the company or its officers. The section does not provide an umbrella to a company or its directors and officers for a thing which is an offence or an infringement or violation of any law, rule or regulation punishable by imprisonment or fine or both. Such criminal proceedings can be commenced or continued notwithstanding the fact that a scheme for compromise or arrangement has been initiated under section 391”.
Procedure to be followed while approving the scheme of amalgamation:
The procedure to be followed while getting the scheme of amalgamation is approved will depend upon sections 391 to 394A. Though, section 391 deals with the issue of compromise or arrangement which is different from the issue of amalgamation as deal with under section 394, as section 394 too refers to the procedure under section 391 etc., all the section are to be seen together while understanding the procedure of getting the scheme of amalgamation approved. Again, it is true that while the procedure to be followed in case of amalgamation of two companies is wider than the scheme of compromise or arrangement though there exist substantial overlapping. The procedure to be followed while getting the scheme of amalgamation and the important points, are as follows:
(1) Any company, creditors of the company, class of them, members or the class of members can file an application under section 391 seeking sanction of any scheme of compromise or arrangement. However, by its very nature it can be understood that the scheme of amalgamation is normally presented by the company. While filing an application either under section 391 or section 394, the applicant is supposed to disclose all material particulars in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
(2) Upon satisfying that the scheme is prima facie workable and fair, the Tribunal order for the meeting of the members, class of members, creditors or the class of creditors. Rather, passing an order calling for meeting, if the requirements of holding meetings with class of shareholders or the members, are specifically dealt with in the order calling meeting, then, there won’t be any subsequent litigation. The scope of conduct of meeting with such class of members or the shareholders is wider in case of amalgamation than where a scheme of compromise or arrangement is sought for under section 391.
(3) The scheme must get approved by the majority of the stake holders viz., the members, class of members, creditors or such class of creditors. The scope of conduct of meeting with the members, class of members, creditors or such class of creditors will be restrictive some what in an application seeking compromise or arrangement.
(4) There should be due notice disclosing all material particulars and annexing the copy of the scheme as the case may be while calling the meeting.
(5) In a case where amalgamation of two companies is sought for, before approving the scheme of amalgamation, a report is to be received form the registrar of companies that the approval of scheme will not prejudice the interests of the shareholders.
(6) The Central Government is also required to file its report in an application seeking approval of compromise, arrangement or the amalgamation as the case may be under section 394A.
(7) After complying with all the requirements, if the scheme is approved, then, the certified copy of the order is to be filed with the concerned authorities.
Dealing with the issue of mergers and amalgamations elaborately is a bigger and complicated affair.
In this article, I would like to deal with, in brief, as to whether it is right to say that the amalgamation provisions as provided in the Act are being misused and the procedure to be followed while getting the scheme of amalgamation approved under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Is it correct to say that the provisions dealing with the arrangement and amalgamations will be useful for the unscrupulous as an escape route?
There is a general assumption that the provisions of Act especially provisions providing for compromise, arrangement or amalgamation, are getting misused. Even though, there is nothing in law even by implication to suggest that the provisions will get misused, it is general thought that the persons charged with will take the plea that the application has been filed for sanctioning the scheme and the proceedings will automatically get abated. Law is very clear in this regard that the criminal proceedings against the persons connected with the affairs of the company will not get abated just because an application seeking sanction of scheme is filed or scheme is being implemented. Only the proceedings, to some extent, sought to be stayed when a scheme is filed and implemented. It is based on the logic that if the civil proceedings are going on simultaneously when the scheme is being approved, then, the scheme could not be worked out. Dealing with the same, the High Court of Bombay, in State of Tamilnadu Vs. Uma Investments Pvt. Ltd (1977) 47 Com Cases 242, was pleased to observe that “it is in respect of these classes of creditors that a proposal is put forward by the company for a compromise or arrangement. The compromises or arrangements are, therefore, concerned with civil liabilities where a creditor will accept a lesser payment or receive less on distribution or grant time or waive interest and work out other kindred things. It is not possible to take the view that section 391 is meant for freezing criminal proceedings which may be instituted either by a creditor or a member of a company or by the State either against the company or its officers. The section does not provide an umbrella to a company or its directors and officers for a thing which is an offence or an infringement or violation of any law, rule or regulation punishable by imprisonment or fine or both. Such criminal proceedings can be commenced or continued notwithstanding the fact that a scheme for compromise or arrangement has been initiated under section 391”.
Procedure to be followed while approving the scheme of amalgamation:
The procedure to be followed while getting the scheme of amalgamation is approved will depend upon sections 391 to 394A. Though, section 391 deals with the issue of compromise or arrangement which is different from the issue of amalgamation as deal with under section 394, as section 394 too refers to the procedure under section 391 etc., all the section are to be seen together while understanding the procedure of getting the scheme of amalgamation approved. Again, it is true that while the procedure to be followed in case of amalgamation of two companies is wider than the scheme of compromise or arrangement though there exist substantial overlapping. The procedure to be followed while getting the scheme of amalgamation and the important points, are as follows:
(1) Any company, creditors of the company, class of them, members or the class of members can file an application under section 391 seeking sanction of any scheme of compromise or arrangement. However, by its very nature it can be understood that the scheme of amalgamation is normally presented by the company. While filing an application either under section 391 or section 394, the applicant is supposed to disclose all material particulars in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
(2) Upon satisfying that the scheme is prima facie workable and fair, the Tribunal order for the meeting of the members, class of members, creditors or the class of creditors. Rather, passing an order calling for meeting, if the requirements of holding meetings with class of shareholders or the members, are specifically dealt with in the order calling meeting, then, there won’t be any subsequent litigation. The scope of conduct of meeting with such class of members or the shareholders is wider in case of amalgamation than where a scheme of compromise or arrangement is sought for under section 391.
(3) The scheme must get approved by the majority of the stake holders viz., the members, class of members, creditors or such class of creditors. The scope of conduct of meeting with the members, class of members, creditors or such class of creditors will be restrictive some what in an application seeking compromise or arrangement.
(4) There should be due notice disclosing all material particulars and annexing the copy of the scheme as the case may be while calling the meeting.
(5) In a case where amalgamation of two companies is sought for, before approving the scheme of amalgamation, a report is to be received form the registrar of companies that the approval of scheme will not prejudice the interests of the shareholders.
(6) The Central Government is also required to file its report in an application seeking approval of compromise, arrangement or the amalgamation as the case may be under section 394A.
(7) After complying with all the requirements, if the scheme is approved, then, the certified copy of the order is to be filed with the concerned authorities.
e-mindatwork: ALTERATION OF CAPITAL CLAUSE
e-mindatwork: ALTERATION OF CAPITAL CLAUSE: Brief outlook: Out of the five clauses comprising the Memorandum of Association of the Company Capital Clause is the Fifth clause depic...
Friday, August 19, 2011
Sebi may allow preferential, QIP options - Bipul kumar WMC
SEBI may give two more options to promoters to pare stakes to 75%—issuing shares through qualified institutional placements (QIPs) and preferential shares. If cleared, the proposal will help speed up sale of stakes by promoters and also lower the cost of paring holdingsThe government in 2010 asked firms to have a minimum 25% public shareholding by March 2013, to bring in accountability and transparency in listed firms. It allowed public sector firms to maintain a 10% public holding.
The proposal, at an early stage, is yet to be presented to SEBI. If approved, it will speed up such stake sales and bring down the cost of paring holdings.
Promoters are now allowed to lower stakes by selling shares to existing shareholders or rights issues, or fresh shares through follow-on public offers (FPOs).
Current Sebi norms allow firms to issue shares through a QIP only if they adhere to listing norms where the promoter shareholding is below 75%.
QIPs are made to qualified institutional investors, including mutual funds and insurance companies. A preferential issue is the sale of shares to a select group of persons or investors, who can also be promoters.
In the case of a promoter, the lock-in to stay invested is three years, while for a non-promoter it is one year.
While preferential allotments and QIPs take four-five weeks to complete, rights issues and FPOs take around four-five months as Sebi approval is required.
According to a banker with a domestic investment bank, the money spent to sell shares through a QIP is 2-2.5% of the capital raised, roughly half of what is typically spent for an FPO or a rights issue.
For a rights issue or an FPO, a company has to file a draft prospectus with Sebi and wait for its approval.
It is time-consuming. By the time the issue gets approved, market dynamics can change and no promoter wants to dilute when the valuation takes a dip.
Since there are no special benefits that these qualified institutional investors enjoy, there is no reason why a company should not be allowed to place the shares with select institutions.
As many as 65 companies on BSE-500 have promoter holdings in excess of 75% as of June, of which 27 were state-owned, according to data from Capitaline. BSE-500 comprises the 500 top traded firms on BSE, accounting for 93% of the bourse’s market capitalization.
Few firms have reduced stakes using the existing options.
Between June 2010 and June 2011, seven out of 35 firms were able to reduce their promoter shareholding marginally. Four increased it marginally, while others kept it unchanged.
With the kind of volatile equity markets we have, it is difficult to execute a share sale through a rights issue or an FPO.It is a laborious and expensive option to dilute promoter stake in a company.
India VIX, the volatility index of the National Stock Exchange, closed Thursday at 27.45. It had risen above 30 in the past two weeks as indices swung wildly.
For companies with less than 80% promoter shareholding, a QIP is a better option.For promoters who have more than 85% shareholding, buying more from the open market and delisting is also an option.
The list of BSE-500 companies with substantial promoter shareholding include Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd (90%), Puravankara Projects Ltd (89.96%), BOC India Ltd (89.48%), Omaxe Ltd (89.14%), Alfa Laval (India) Ltd (88.76%), Gillette India Ltd (88.76%), Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd (86.96%), DB Corp. Ltd (86.45%), Bajaj Corp. Ltd (84.75%) and Godrej Properties Ltd (83.79%), according to BSE data.
With regards,
Bipul Kumar
Wisdom Management Consultancy Private Limited
--------------------------------------------------
Reg. Office: B-94/9, Dharni Chamber, Joshi Colony, IP Extension, New Delhi-110092.
+91-9560084833 [Cell]
The proposal, at an early stage, is yet to be presented to SEBI. If approved, it will speed up such stake sales and bring down the cost of paring holdings.
Promoters are now allowed to lower stakes by selling shares to existing shareholders or rights issues, or fresh shares through follow-on public offers (FPOs).
Current Sebi norms allow firms to issue shares through a QIP only if they adhere to listing norms where the promoter shareholding is below 75%.
QIPs are made to qualified institutional investors, including mutual funds and insurance companies. A preferential issue is the sale of shares to a select group of persons or investors, who can also be promoters.
In the case of a promoter, the lock-in to stay invested is three years, while for a non-promoter it is one year.
While preferential allotments and QIPs take four-five weeks to complete, rights issues and FPOs take around four-five months as Sebi approval is required.
According to a banker with a domestic investment bank, the money spent to sell shares through a QIP is 2-2.5% of the capital raised, roughly half of what is typically spent for an FPO or a rights issue.
For a rights issue or an FPO, a company has to file a draft prospectus with Sebi and wait for its approval.
It is time-consuming. By the time the issue gets approved, market dynamics can change and no promoter wants to dilute when the valuation takes a dip.
Since there are no special benefits that these qualified institutional investors enjoy, there is no reason why a company should not be allowed to place the shares with select institutions.
As many as 65 companies on BSE-500 have promoter holdings in excess of 75% as of June, of which 27 were state-owned, according to data from Capitaline. BSE-500 comprises the 500 top traded firms on BSE, accounting for 93% of the bourse’s market capitalization.
Few firms have reduced stakes using the existing options.
Between June 2010 and June 2011, seven out of 35 firms were able to reduce their promoter shareholding marginally. Four increased it marginally, while others kept it unchanged.
With the kind of volatile equity markets we have, it is difficult to execute a share sale through a rights issue or an FPO.It is a laborious and expensive option to dilute promoter stake in a company.
India VIX, the volatility index of the National Stock Exchange, closed Thursday at 27.45. It had risen above 30 in the past two weeks as indices swung wildly.
For companies with less than 80% promoter shareholding, a QIP is a better option.For promoters who have more than 85% shareholding, buying more from the open market and delisting is also an option.
The list of BSE-500 companies with substantial promoter shareholding include Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd (90%), Puravankara Projects Ltd (89.96%), BOC India Ltd (89.48%), Omaxe Ltd (89.14%), Alfa Laval (India) Ltd (88.76%), Gillette India Ltd (88.76%), Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd (86.96%), DB Corp. Ltd (86.45%), Bajaj Corp. Ltd (84.75%) and Godrej Properties Ltd (83.79%), according to BSE data.
With regards,
Bipul Kumar
Wisdom Management Consultancy Private Limited
--------------------------------------------------
Reg. Office: B-94/9, Dharni Chamber, Joshi Colony, IP Extension, New Delhi-110092.
+91-9560084833 [Cell]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)