Tracking Indian Economy till general elections 2019

[mayfair]

Since when did economy thread become a political thread?

Don't we have enough of them already?

 

[tsunami]

yes that's one point but the other point is possession. Amarpali, Jaypee, mascot every builder has taken the money and now bankcorrupt can't even complete the project.

Possession yes, but this is not this Govts fault that proper regulations were not available for this Builders before. They have tried to improve the situation with RERA and it looks good though I am not expert on this.

Now about the builders I have yet to see single builder homeless. These guys are sitting on pile of black money and none of them is actually bankrupt.

 

[tsunami]

How about the people who bought it for 65 Lakh three years ago and lost money due to inflation?

Plus why would you buy a house if your investment doesn't at least beat inflation over time? You'd be better off renting.

Well if you buy a house for living in it, it's not investment it's just home. No matter what are the prices you don't expect return from your Home. And if you bought it for investment for having returns then it was bad investment. This govt.'s target is to provide home to everyone not return on flats.

 

[tsunami]

Since when did economy thread become a political thread?

Don't we have enough of them already?

I thought that initially but there is a dedicated Indian Economy thread and this thread has "Till general Election" in it's title which means evaluating this govt. on economy basis. You can't control it it will be political only.

 

[Khagesh]

Do this GENTLE MAN even understand definition of "DIRECTOR" ????

So you have decided that you will not ever recognize the fact that the stupid manner of striking off companies has created difficulties for fully compliant companies and you think you deserve an answer too. . Gazab sense of entitlement hai.

Ok, this time I think I will. Following is what I tender as my answer.

Whether the case of 50 directors of Nifty 500 companies or the 45000 directors of shell companies under Chennai RoC, the answer remains the same. In both cases, except for the ability to pay for outside help, the answer is yes and no.

Yes, because they then all have to rely on others to do it for them. Even the shell companies which have mostly been incorporated for availing business opportunities as and when the opportunity arises have to follow so many different procedures that they will either follow procedures or chase business.

And

No, because unlike you they cannot recite Section 166 and they know jack shit of what it means. BTW do you even know Section 166 it means. It is these kinds of useless provisions due to which Companies Act, 2013 was criticized by practicing professionals right before the IAS officers who used to come to seminars for bhashans and lunch time networking. Obviously this provision was enforced from 01.04.2017. Useless fluff always comes to the top. But due to idiocy like these the Companies Act, 2013 has not been enforced in full to this day. Check the status of Section 465. The old law has not been repealed in full till date. And this state of trishanku ka swarg is only because of this kind of attitude towards law making. Laws that provide for everything and nothing at the same time will always create confusion.


In fact I would urge readers to read this fantastic Section 166 and see what great facility it has given to the world that was already not known or established by legal precedence. This is actually the example of palla jhad job that legislators did (which included legal luminaries from BJP also).

The following duties and liabilities have been imposed on the directors of companies, by the Indian Companies Act of 2013, under its Section 166: ---

[Subject to the provisions of this Act] A director of a company shall act in accordance with the Articles of Association (AOA) of the company.

A director of the company shall act in good faith, in order to promote the objects of the company, for the benefits of the company as a whole, and in the best interests of the stakeholders of the company.

A director of a company shall exercise his duties with due and reasonable care, skill and diligence and shall exercise independent judgment.

A director of a company shall not involve in a situation in which he may have a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or possibly may conflict, with the interest of the company.

A director of a company shall not achieve or attempt to achieve any undue gain or advantage either to himself or to his relatives, partners, or associates and if such director is found guilty of making any undue gain, he shall be liable to pay an amount equal to that gain to the company.

A director of a company shall not assign his office and any assignment so made shall be void.

If a director of the company contravenes the provisions of this section such director shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than one Lakh Rupees but which may extend to five Lac Rupees.

Did you find anything legal in it or do you think its all an english language essay.

Government implements "Housing for All" Scheme with full guns blazing. This can also bring down the property to the affordable level.

Affordable housing or seeds of a new debt trap? First entrap sufficiently large numbers then leave them high and dry. Just like the ones already entrapped now for political reasons.


So what is the wish list for this so called affordable housing? Do you want the housing to be at 75% of ruling prices or 50%. You have got to be specific. What exactly affordable means in what time frame is something Modi ji and his chamchas should be capable of saying. Every businessman is asked to spell this out when asking for money.

You don’t even need to tell me what you think. Just imagine up whatever discount you believe should be there and see of the following has come down in commensurate manner:

1) Material cost?

2) Labour cost?

3) Graft cost?

4) Cost of Compliance?

5) Interest rates and finance cost? Has any new financing from within India been allowed for crucial things like land acquisition?

6) Land acquisition cost?


If you are comfortable with the answers you have in your hands then good for you but if not then please do not forget to post me when you go seek these from the Hindu Hridaya Samrat.


Hath ki bater chod di, ab nayi chidiya udane chal diye.

 

[Project Dharma]

Well if you buy a house for living in it, it's not investment it's just home. No matter what are the prices you don't expect return from your Home. And if you bought it for investment for having returns then it was bad investment. This govt.'s target is to provide home to everyone not return on flats.

lol leave it, I can see why people who post in this thread get frustrated.

 

[sorcerer]

GST regime brings new cash management system for govt expenses


NEW DELHI: The new GST regime has brought with it a new cash management system for government expenditure and income with the Home Ministry directing all its 21 divisions to strictly follow it to avert any situation of temporary mismatch in cash outflows and inflows.

In a circular, the home ministry said the revised cash management system, formulated by the Ministry of Finance, has to be followed in view of the changes in tax receipt under the GST regime.

As per the guidelines of the new system, the salary of the employees should be released on the last working day of each month and the bulk expenditure items of more than Rs 2,000 crore should be timed in the last month of each quarter to utilise direct tax receipt inflows in June, September, December and March.


A calendar of big releases of Rs 200 crore to Rs 2,000 crore shall be prepared and date of release should be kept between 21st and 25th of the month, according to the guidelines, accessed by .


In case a major expenditure of more than Rs 200 crore and above needs to be prepared outside the prescribed dates, prior approval of the budget division of the finance ministry should be taken.


Not more than 33 per cent of the expenditure of budget estimates in the last quarter and 15 per cent in the last month of the financial year shall be permissible.

The restriction shall be observed both scheme-wise as well as for the demand for grants as a whole.

The financial adviser of the ministry should review and freeze the timing of the receipt of dividend and various other non-tax receipts of the ministry.

The financial adviser of the ministry should monitor the timely realisation of the non-tax receipts and submit collection details of non-tax receipts through the online portal 'Bharat Kosh' of the Controller General of Accounts, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines said that the home ministry will furnish the month-wise tax revenue inflows to budget division on quarterly basis.


The financial adviser will also monitor the release of funds to autonomous bodies and other organisations to ensure that there is no undue build up of funds with such bodies.

Release of funds to autonomous bodies and implementing agencies will be on monthly basis, rather than in adhoc manner, to avoid parking of funds, the guidelines said.

Each division of the ministry has to prepare monthly or quarterly expenditure plan and send it to the budget division of the finance ministry within two weeks of passing of the demand for grants in Parliament.



Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst


Full Steam Ahead!!!!

 

[Bhoot Pishach]

So you have decided that you will not ever recognize the fact that the stupid manner of striking off companies has created difficulties for fully compliant companies and you think you deserve an answer too. . Gazab sense of entitlement hai.

Ok, this time I think I will. Following is what I tender as my answer.

Whether the case of 50 directors of Nifty 500 companies or the 45000 directors of shell companies under Chennai RoC, the answer remains the same. In both cases, except for the ability to pay for outside help, the answer is yes and no.

Yes, because they then all have to rely on others to do it for them. Even the shell companies which have mostly been incorporated for availing business opportunities as and when the opportunity arises have to follow so many different procedures that they will either follow procedures or chase business.

And

No, because unlike you they cannot recite Section 166 and they know jack shit of what it means. BTW do you even know Section 166 it means. It is these kinds of useless provisions due to which Companies Act, 2013 was criticized by practicing professionals right before the IAS officers who used to come to seminars for bhashans and lunch time networking. Obviously this provision was enforced from 01.04.2017. Useless fluff always comes to the top. But due to idiocy like these the Companies Act, 2013 has not been enforced in full to this day. Check the status of Section 465. The old law has not been repealed in full till date. And this state of trishanku ka swarg is only because of this kind of attitude towards law making. Laws that provide for everything and nothing at the same time will always create confusion.


In fact I would urge readers to read this fantastic Section 166 and see what great facility it has given to the world that was already not known or established by legal precedence. This is actually the example of palla jhad job that legislators did (which included legal luminaries from BJP also).



Did you find anything legal in it or do you think its all an english language essay.





Affordable housing or seeds of a new debt trap? First entrap sufficiently large numbers then leave them high and dry. Just like the ones already entrapped now for political reasons.


So what is the wish list for this so called affordable housing? Do you want the housing to be at 75% of ruling prices or 50%. You have got to be specific. What exactly affordable means in what time frame is something Modi ji and his chamchas should be capable of saying. Every businessman is asked to spell this out when asking for money.

You don’t even need to tell me what you think. Just imagine up whatever discount you believe should be there and see of the following has come down in commensurate manner:

1) Material cost?

2) Labour cost?

3) Graft cost?

4) Cost of Compliance?

5) Interest rates and finance cost? Has any new financing from within India been allowed for crucial things like land acquisition?

6) Land acquisition cost?


If you are comfortable with the answers you have in your hands then good for you but if not then please do not forget to post me when you go seek these from the Hindu Hridaya Samrat.


Hath ki bater chod di, ab nayi chidiya udane chal diye.

What a long crappy explanation

Let me clarify some facts:


Do you even understand Company is not a natural person? A company is a legal entity which comes into existence BY AN ACT OF “LAW”.

The Company cannot Act upon itself, it acts through the rights provided to it’s OFFICERS – and Officers are Promotors, Directors, Company Secretary or any person who is been given the rights to represent with due procedures under the Law and CONSTITUTION OF COMPANY.

A person When he becomes Director he becomes liable for all the actions performed by the Company. Because he acts with the Power which is been enacted upon him by the Company, and it is his liability maintain Legal and Financial Health of the Company.

AND KINDLY NOTE: FILING OF ALL STATUTORY LIABILITIES WITHIN DUE TIME PERIOD IS “NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY” OF A COMPANY. WHICH IS DIRECT "RESPONSIBILITY" OF “BOARD OF DIRECTORS”.

And it did not absolves Liability until and unless a RESOLUTION is passed RESTRICTING “POWER TO PERFORM” CERTAIN ACTIONS which are been normally ENACTED UPON TO A DIRECTOR.

All what I can see is that all you want CRONY CAPITALISTS TO WELD ALL THE POWER AND SAFETY PROVIDED UNDER THE VAIL OF A COMPANY. BUT NOT ANY LIABILITY AND DUTIES CONFERRED UPON.

WHY A PERSON BECOMES DIRECTOR IN SO MANY COMPANIES WHICH THEY CANNOT MANAGE. The persons themselves are responsible for their own deeds.

Do these persons even care about the Companies in which they are Directors?

Do these persons know that the Companies are not filing basic returns??? If they know why they not ensured COMPLIANCES???

If BOARD OF DIRECTORS do not listen to them do they registered their protest in “Board Meetings”???

Do they Resigned from BOARD OF DIRECTORS, with registering protest???

And for your kind information SECTION - 166 IS "NOTIFIED" AND COME INTO FORCE FROM 01-APR-2014.

The notification is attached herewith for your kind perusal.

Bhai Saheb Compani Nahi Chalani to "PARCHUN KI DUKAN KHOL LENA CHAIYE"



I am done with a person who want to bend the law for personal convenience.

Good Bye.

 

[Flame Thrower]

Oil may not always be cheap but Jai-Italy will forever be dumb!

On a funny note what has our Finance Minister to do with Italy.

How is he related?

Ustad ji, "Jai Italy is neither funny nor sarcastic"

Can you pls come up with something better.... like Pappu to Rahul.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Since so many bhakths here cry for my ban, I will stop busting their echo chambers for now. Lets see for next 2 quarters. Indian economy is still going to be shit then, if we go by the current models and predictions and I want to see how bhakths defend the present govt then. Till then keep they can keep living in their lala land

I have a friend like you on facebook.

Calls himself right wing Hindu, but insults Modi at every turn because he's "not doing enough" and "doesn't know what he's doing" and "will never vote for him".

Go fight an election then, take on the most corrupt, violent and ruthless political party in the world (INC) - or better, go vote for them and see what happens to Hindus next time. It's so-called Hindus like you who've put the nation through slavery for centuries because you can't unite, can't stop picking faults and bickering, and can't stand behind the only leader they have (surrounded by scum like BSP, SP, INC, NCP, AAP, etc). It's not like you're spoiled for choice - you have either Modi or you have complete destruction. Make your choice.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

On a funny note what has our Finance Minister to do with Italy.

How is he related?

Ustad ji, "Jai Italy is neither funny nor sarcastic"

Can you pls come up with something better.... like Pappu to Rahul.

Jai-Italy is common all over SM. You just need to read bit more.

Economy might go to dump or same guy can run finance plus defence (two super tough ministries which need own minister) for years, but not a single word is spoken against it in MSM. He is the original lutyens mole and is never criticized on individual level.

 

[Khagesh]

What a long crappy explanation

Ok, Goldfish I will try again - Y o u r ..... l a w ..... n o t ..... g o o d ..... e n o u g h. Hope that was easier.

BTW you had raised the banner of affordable housing to which I did reply. Do you want to avoid that topic now? It is an important topic that affects large parts of our country. I don't particularly mind it either way, since I believe you have no answers to the challenges I have raised. And you don't have to lose heart even business promoters involved and exposed in personal capacity, have no answers for these queries.

The Company Law problem, while serious it affects only a very few in the country. Like Cancer or HIV. Courts can be relied upon to manage it reasonably. So it can wait but the terrible explanation given by @Bhoot Pishach will end up confusing people as to the real extent of their responsibilities if they happen to have not read the company law but are nonetheless helping run businesses. So I will try to write again on it. But I need this to be the last one on this.

First off please note that Section 2(60) and 203 will help to understand your responsibilities if you are an Officer in Default &/or KMP. Promoter figures in none. Please note @Bhoot Pishach.

MCA had the specific provisions for dealing with companies which had not filed their annual returns under Section 455(4). Notice the full stops in that section and no outside references and is law as made by parliament without being subjected to any rule making power of the subordinate agencies. It is settled law that if a specific provision is made in law then that supercedes a general provisions and if parliamentary law exists then subordinate legislation cannot supercede it. The MCA instead acted on the basis of rules made by itself under Section 248 which actually does not even mention as a pre-condition the grounds of non filing of returns. In fact the so called vanishing companies which were not filing returns and were not maintaining registered office at the last notified addresses were specifically not to be struck off under the earlier Fast Track Exit Scheme (Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.) - http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Rules_28122016.pdf. So what changed? This time MCA deliberately made the choice of writing spurious notices to enable themselves to use a predetermined but legally weak procedure whereby non-filing was presumed tantamount to non-operation.

Procedure adopted was that the MCAs had sent notices that since you have not filed return why your company should not be presumed to be not doing business and consequently struck off. Some people replied, some did not, per their respective choices. Most people who replied stated that the default is in non-filing and the shell companies have still to be considered as going concerns. This implies that it was brought to the notice of MCA by several parties that there is infirmity in its presumptions. The presumption itself is open to challenge and perhaps that is why 2 high courts have stayed the Ministry decision to strike off suo moto basis and then go on to disqualify directors that too from a back date. How can the MCA get a "reasonable cause to believe" based on a self invented proedure. Reasonable cause to believe arises when a causative presumption/pre-condition mandated by legislature or by a subordinate legislating agency authorised in this regard, acts upon the expressly provided for presumption/pre-condition. If this kind of legal administration is allowed then some day a tehsildar can also evict you from rightful ownership. Tehsildar also has registrar duties. Yeh to mazak ban kar rah jayega.

Reasonable Cause To Believe - It means to have knowledge of facts which, although not amounting to direct knowledge, would cause a reasonable person, knowing the same facts, to reasonably conclude the same thing. That implies that there must be some material. Absence of material (reply) is not presence of presumption.

Fazal Ghosi, Wahid, Ayaz Ahmadand ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 29 June, 1987 - Supreme Court says "We are aware that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate is subjective in nature, but even subjective satisfaction must be based upon some pertinent material. We are concerned here not with the sufficiency of that material but with the existence of any relevant material at all." - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031070/

Words like reasonable cause to belive are also used in the law relating to political parties. Now if tomorrow ECI &/or ITO, says that BJP should tell them which foreigner is contributing how much and if not told then there is reasonable cause to believe that there is wrongful funding, would that hold? Off course not. Because in the absence of replies you have to search out other ways to see if the foreign funding is present or not. A non reply from the accused is not the same thing as the accuser holding facts in hand to be able to act upon it. Likewise in most cases of strike offs there is no reply received and I bet MCA did not even approach other govt. departments to see if the directors are alive or dead or active in any manner. This even when all the MCAs have PAN data of all the directors in India.

For those who have no background in these procedural matters, I will try to explain pointwise and you can read the provisions for first hand judgement:

• A legal provision says that if 3 consequtive annual filings are not done then the director gets disqualified and cannot keep functioning as director. This was the provision used to strike off most companies and disqualify directors.
• Unfortunately the older law was not applicable on most private companies. So there 3 years can start only under the new law.
• Unfortunately also the first and the second are both positions that were not clarified by the new law. The language ends up clashing with the legal understanding that you cannot normally apply a law retrospectively without specifying that it so meant. Call this problem 1.
• Then the filing itself was allowed for 270 days beyond the normal max. filing due dates of Oct/Nov of any given year, after paying an additional fee. Even beyond this is a concept of default made good, readily accepted by both the Ministry and the Courts. The striking off messed up this too for a lot of struck off companies. Call this problem 2.
• Then the law allowed for approaching the Ministry to have the struck off companies, correspond with MCA. But this allowance was only for the subsidiary/ancillary filing. The main filing to which this subsidiary filing was to be attached is not allocated to any of the govt. functionaries. So basically no functionary takes responsibility not expressly put on him (logical too). There is a full stop between the provision providing for subsidiary attachment and the provision providing for the main filing and there is drafting infirmty in there. Call this problem 3.
• Then there is the bribery required to have all this corrected. And since bribery is involved even if you have all the papers in place and at all levels so people off course prefer to bribe at the lowest levels. Call this problem 4.
• Then the disqualified directors actually went on to work with govt. departments and these govt. departments also accepted their statements and filings. In some cases despite notice. Actually it is the responsibility of MCA to go tell Tax and other regulatory authorities the fact of striking off. But they choose not to go seek confirmations which was not very difficult, given the PAN linked DINs. Call this problem 5.
• Then no notice was given to a lot of these now disqualified directors to explain why their defaulting companies should not be declared dormant. What instead the MCA did was write on all notices for striking off warnings, that the receivers have to make sure that other people meant to receive it be delivered the notice. A simple shifting of responsibility. During the execution stage thus a lot of disqualified directors were not even notified. Call this problem 6.
• With Income tax returns one could have raised the fake concern of revenue leakage. But in the case of annual filings there is not even a revenue leakage involved. No revenue leakage gets decided by the act of filing because the additional fee and penalty provisions exist. But the unjust enrichment does gets involved because fee is understood legally as enrichment by way of an unjustified service charge. Till September 2017 the MCA had allowed the disqualified directors to keep signing forms in other compliant companies and had kept taking fees for these actions. How can they today disqualify from a back date. Call this problem 7.

All this is merely w.r.t. the entities mentioned in the list.

Then there are problems being faced by the companies which simply could not have known or done anything about the missed out filings by the now disqualifed directors. There is no notification procedure involved and most of the now disqualified directors were not trained properly in the legalese. I have seen Ex-Army officers run around in fear lest they will be asked to sign things done under their supervision and advise (interesting stories for other times perhaps). What can you say of lesser civilians. You can cite the unnatural declaration that ignorance of law is no excuse but if the law itself is an ass then what can you expect from the people made to follow that ass. You cannot bend real life to a hypothetical law for any reasonable length of time.

Right now a lot of these disqualified directors have simply washed off their hands from both their struck off companies and the economic vision of the current govt. So they are happy that they don't have to keep track of these struck off companies. But the companies which are now in an inadvertant default for no fault of their own don't even have any prescribed procedure to have the situation rectified. The promoter is expected to act but he himself finds it difficult to hire good directors. There is a big lobby of professionals educated in western traditions, who think that they can read some parts of law and hence they will just while their times and that others should follow their advise. Also till the time he can find a new director, even in cases where his personal liability was limited he immediately becomes personally and wholly liable alongwith the other non-defaulting directors who are also personally liable for no good reason. Unfortunately in the restoratio proceedings, these non defaulting directors cannot even apply for restoration because the law does not allows them to (though there may be exceptions). This even though the law allows workmen, creditors and the members of the struck off company and the and govt. agencies are allowed to apply. If the creditors can then surely the other agrieved directors of compliant companies too should be allowed. But as is the situation, they cannot.

You can refer Sections 164(2), 167, 165, 248, 249 (read 251 and 252 for background though strictly these are not applicable directly but have indirect implications) and 403 alongwith Rule 14 of Companies Appointment of directors rules.

The following will help you understand how people like @Bhoot Pishach indulge in seena zori :

(1) If BOARD OF DIRECTORS do not listen to them do they register their protest in "Board Meetings"? Do they Resigned from BOARD OF DIRECTORS, with registering protest???

What protest? Where does this even arises. A man hands over the brief to an outside consultant for a price, in the belief that he is being well advised on his company. Seeking advise on legal matters is the basis of all legal administration. Instead he ends up duped. Most times he is not even aware that he has defaulted. How, why and under what provision does this gets discussed or protested in the Board of an unrelated entity? Actually if made known then the board of this unrelated entity will more than happily find alternatives. But most of these unrelated entities would not even know simply because the now disqualified director did not know of his own default in the first place. If some of you remember I had given the example of a day book to be maintained by Doctors in the format prescribed by the Income Tax Deparment. Unfortunately there is hardly any doctor who knows about this because they also hire outside professionals who themselves od only the immidiate work which doesn't leave the doctor any wiser. The whole expectation of privatizing legal administration is bogus. If a CA doesn't end up any wiser about his treatment when done by a doctor then why should a doctor be expected to know any more. The same logic applies to the relationship of these disqualified directors and the directorships they held in other promoter's business.

Where does the occassion of registering protest by resignation arise when the incompetance arises mostly from the hired consultants who are expected to know the law and have a fiduciary duty towards their clients. If your doctor messes up your childs health then you can only take up a moral responsibility being a father, but the material responsibility or real life responsibility rests with the Doctor. Same goes.

Chances are that you did not even get the basic idea of the problem. The problem is not so severe in the companies that had failed to do their filings. The problem is in the companies that had done their filings but that did not have notice of the fact of non-filing of one of the board member in his personal businesses.

(2) "WHY A PERSON BECOMES A DIRECTOR IN SO MANY COMPANIES WHICH THEY CANNOT MANAGE."

Ok ji, valid point. Then allow people to become directors in as many companies as they like. The whole problem arose because of the idiotic limit of 20 directorships per person. Prior to that when a person could be director in as many private companies as he liked this problem never arose. The promoter and his related parties, took direct responsibility of his own business using private companies route, without seeking help from outsiders. There was no need for hiring outsiders from an already inadequate pool of professionals. On the one hand you people argue that outsiders should keep tabs. Then there is no pool of professionals available. And why would people like to take up equal responsibility for unequal work. Will the outside director ever gain as much as the promoter director? If not then why make him responsible as such? Today simply to meet this stupid limit of 20 people have to float ever new shell companies even though the actual protect execution work could be happening in just one company. Even today the Indian borrowers who have the negotiating power refuse to open new SPVs for every funding. Unfortunately for India, most of the business promoters do not fall in the same category as DLF or Godrej or Tata.

(3) CRONY CAPITALISTS TO WELD ALL THE POWER AND SAFETY PROVIDED UNDER THE VAIL OF A COMPANY. BUT NOT ANY LIABILITY AND DUTIES CONFERRED UPON.

Firstly there is no cronyism involved except on part of people like @Bhoot Pishach. These people remain quite when FIIs get to increase their assets and Indian money is used to prop up the stock markets but have problems when Indians come along seeking justice. Most promoters will be more than happy to hire anybody as director because of this artificial limit of 20. But equally people will have to agree to be paid according to what the business promoter considers his worth. This is where most preachy crawlies ki fat jati hai. Reality is people like @Bhoot Pishach want to blackmail the business promoters for their lack of first hand understanding of the surfeit of laws imposed upon them and want to maintain the dependencies this creates. Most of which serve no public cause.

Secondly no person can rationally be made liable for the misdeeds/ignorance/incompetance/mistake of another. Something that should not be so hard to understand. But something that the suo moto striking off ends up doing.
Thirdly this shows the misunderstanding you are labouring under. Almost invariably the promoter's have their kachha baniyan mortgaged right upto their personal assets. None of the real life businessmen care for the so called benefits of Corporate Veil. This is mostly the requirement of the lenders who do not want to share in a pool of security. They do this because they benefit hugely in good times and hence are willing to court losses in bad times (not idiotic times). But why should a layperson be made to share the same responsibility when he cannot benefit and who almost invariably has a different risk-return expectation and cannot even stand against either the promoter or the lenders to enforce his own rights.

(4) Do these persons even care about the Companies in which they are Directors?

What the hell. Had they not cared would they have exposed themselves. But if their consultants educated in the western traditions turn out utter bakwas what the hell can they do?

(5) And for your kind information SECTION - 166 IS "NOTIFIED" AND COME INTO FORCE FROM 01-APR-2014

This here clearly shows your bias in favour of Modi's decision to strike off and against all facts. I was the one who pointed out that some sections are not even notified eg. Section 465 and only some useless ones are eg. Section 166. Do you have an attention deficit problem. Can't you read what you intend to contest?

(6) I am done with a person who want to bend the law for personal convenience.

Lo ulta chor kotwal ko dante. Am I the one supporting a legally unsupported suo moto striking off? The law provides for something which has already been violated by the MCA order. And I am the one looking for personal convenience.

Actually I am not against this striking off of the companies names as such. As I said its cancer for some of the Indians. We have problems that are already affecting all of the Indians. My guesstimate is that Modi also knows some of these continuing problems regarding equal liability of Promoter Directors and Part Time Directors. Probably removing useless companies may be, in his view, a small way of addressing some of these issues. But again he failed to control the job properly or worse still may be the people under him are emboldened by his failure in the Demonetisation and have laid trap doors for their own subsequent bribe taking. Modi merely got gamed due to his own need to come up with something to hide his own failures in demonetisation. The people lower down came up with this unique scheme. The suo moto striking off should have followed some procedures driven towards providing natural justice to people not intended to be disturbed but who nonetheless now feel fooled. Instead it was driven by a procedure that was intended for shifting responsibilities. Worst part is actually the back dating of disqualifications of directors which needs to be addressed which actually creates all the difficulties and not the striking off of the names of the companies.

Sorry @Bhoot Pishach , no time for colouring. Next time I will make sure to fill in colours and add some drawings for you too.

 

[Screambowl]

Now about the builders I have yet to see single builder homeless. These guys are sitting on pile of black money and none of them is actually bankrupt

May be their personal accounts are full. But the loan they took from banks, now they have become defaulters. This gives stress.

 

[tsunami]

May be their personal accounts are full. But the loan they took from banks, now they have become defaulters. This gives stress.

This is where govt should act. Attach their property and seal their account bankrupt these bastards.

 

[mayfair]

The new bankruptcy law and real estate law and benaami properties act should help

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Govt. is mulling bringing real estate too under the ambit of the GST. a number of states are said to have also demanded it.

 

[Screambowl]

Govt. is mulling bringing real estate too under the ambit of the GST. a number of states are said to have also demanded it.

with the registration charges one needs to pay the tax or with the total amount ( cost of mortgage) GST will be calculated?

 

[IndiaRising]

What a long crappy explanation

Let me clarify some facts:


Do you even understand Company is not a natural person? A company is a legal entity which comes into existence BY AN ACT OF “LAW”.

The Company cannot Act upon itself, it acts through the rights provided to it’s OFFICERS – and Officers are Promotors, Directors, Company Secretary or any person who is been given the rights to represent with due procedures under the Law and CONSTITUTION OF COMPANY.

A person When he becomes Director he becomes liable for all the actions performed by the Company. Because he acts with the Power which is been enacted upon him by the Company, and it is his liability maintain Legal and Financial Health of the Company.

AND KINDLY NOTE: FILING OF ALL STATUTORY LIABILITIES WITHIN DUE TIME PERIOD IS “NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY” OF A COMPANY. WHICH IS DIRECT "RESPONSIBILITY" OF “BOARD OF DIRECTORS”.

And it did not absolves Liability until and unless a RESOLUTION is passed RESTRICTING “POWER TO PERFORM” CERTAIN ACTIONS which are been normally ENACTED UPON TO A DIRECTOR.

All what I can see is that all you want CRONY CAPITALISTS TO WELD ALL THE POWER AND SAFETY PROVIDED UNDER THE VAIL OF A COMPANY. BUT NOT ANY LIABILITY AND DUTIES CONFERRED UPON.

WHY A PERSON BECOMES DIRECTOR IN SO MANY COMPANIES WHICH THEY CANNOT MANAGE. The persons themselves are responsible for their own deeds.

Do these persons even care about the Companies in which they are Directors?

Do these persons know that the Companies are not filing basic returns??? If they know why they not ensured COMPLIANCES???

If BOARD OF DIRECTORS do not listen to them do they registered their protest in “Board Meetings”???

Do they Resigned from BOARD OF DIRECTORS, with registering protest???

And for your kind information SECTION - 166 IS "NOTIFIED" AND COME INTO FORCE FROM 01-APR-2014.

The notification is attached herewith for your kind perusal.

Bhai Saheb Compani Nahi Chalani to "PARCHUN KI DUKAN KHOL LENA CHAIYE"



I am done with a person who want to bend the law for personal convenience.

Good Bye.

people support anti-corruption movement as long as it doesn't affect their personal livelihood.

 

[indiatester]

Ok, Goldfish I will try again - Y o u r ..... l a w ..... n o t ..... g o o d ..... e n o u g h. Hope that was easier.

BTW you had raised the banner of affordable housing to which I did reply. Do you want to avoid that topic now? It is an important topic that affects large parts of our country. I don't particularly mind it either way, since I believe you have no answers to the challenges I have raised. And you don't have to lose heart even business promoters involved and exposed in personal capacity, have no answers for these queries.

The Company Law problem, while serious it affects only a very few in the country. Like Cancer or HIV. Courts can be relied upon to manage it reasonably. So it can wait but the terrible explanation given by @Bhoot Pishach will end up confusing people as to the real extent of their responsibilities if they happen to have not read the company law but are nonetheless helping run businesses. So I will try to write again on it. But I need this to be the last one on this.

First off please note that Section 2(60) and 203 will help to understand your responsibilities if you are an Officer in Default &/or KMP. Promoter figures in none. Please note @Bhoot Pishach.

MCA had the specific provisions for dealing with companies which had not filed their annual returns under Section 455(4). Notice the full stops in that section and no outside references and is law as made by parliament without being subjected to any rule making power of the subordinate agencies. It is settled law that if a specific provision is made in law then that supercedes a general provisions and if parliamentary law exists then subordinate legislation cannot supercede it. The MCA instead acted on the basis of rules made by itself under Section 248 which actually does not even mention as a pre-condition the grounds of non filing of returns. In fact the so called vanishing companies which were not filing returns and were not maintaining registered office at the last notified addresses were specifically not to be struck off under the earlier Fast Track Exit Scheme (Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.) - http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Rules_28122016.pdf. So what changed? This time MCA deliberately made the choice of writing spurious notices to enable themselves to use a predetermined but legally weak procedure whereby non-filing was presumed tantamount to non-operation.

Procedure adopted was that the MCAs had sent notices that since you have not filed return why your company should not be presumed to be not doing business and consequently struck off. Some people replied, some did not, per their respective choices. Most people who replied stated that the default is in non-filing and the shell companies have still to be considered as going concerns. This implies that it was brought to the notice of MCA by several parties that there is infirmity in its presumptions. The presumption itself is open to challenge and perhaps that is why 2 high courts have stayed the Ministry decision to strike off suo moto basis and then go on to disqualify directors that too from a back date. How can the MCA get a "reasonable cause to believe" based on a self invented proedure. Reasonable cause to believe arises when a causative presumption/pre-condition mandated by legislature or by a subordinate legislating agency authorised in this regard, acts upon the expressly provided for presumption/pre-condition. If this kind of legal administration is allowed then some day a tehsildar can also evict you from rightful ownership. Tehsildar also has registrar duties. Yeh to mazak ban kar rah jayega.

Reasonable Cause To Believe - It means to have knowledge of facts which, although not amounting to direct knowledge, would cause a reasonable person, knowing the same facts, to reasonably conclude the same thing. That implies that there must be some material. Absence of material (reply) is not presence of presumption.

Fazal Ghosi, Wahid, Ayaz Ahmadand ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 29 June, 1987 - Supreme Court says "We are aware that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate is subjective in nature, but even subjective satisfaction must be based upon some pertinent material. We are concerned here not with the sufficiency of that material but with the existence of any relevant material at all." - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031070/

Words like reasonable cause to belive are also used in the law relating to political parties. Now if tomorrow ECI &/or ITO, says that BJP should tell them which foreigner is contributing how much and if not told then there is reasonable cause to believe that there is wrongful funding, would that hold? Off course not. Because in the absence of replies you have to search out other ways to see if the foreign funding is present or not. A non reply from the accused is not the same thing as the accuser holding facts in hand to be able to act upon it. Likewise in most cases of strike offs there is no reply received and I bet MCA did not even approach other govt. departments to see if the directors are alive or dead or active in any manner. This even when all the MCAs have PAN data of all the directors in India.

For those who have no background in these procedural matters, I will try to explain pointwise and you can read the provisions for first hand judgement:

• A legal provision says that if 3 consequtive annual filings are not done then the director gets disqualified and cannot keep functioning as director. This was the provision used to strike off most companies and disqualify directors.
• Unfortunately the older law was not applicable on most private companies. So there 3 years can start only under the new law.
• Unfortunately also the first and the second are both positions that were not clarified by the new law. The language ends up clashing with the legal understanding that you cannot normally apply a law retrospectively without specifying that it so meant. Call this problem 1.
• Then the filing itself was allowed for 270 days beyond the normal max. filing due dates of Oct/Nov of any given year, after paying an additional fee. Even beyond this is a concept of default made good, readily accepted by both the Ministry and the Courts. The striking off messed up this too for a lot of struck off companies. Call this problem 2.
• Then the law allowed for approaching the Ministry to have the struck off companies, correspond with MCA. But this allowance was only for the subsidiary/ancillary filing. The main filing to which this subsidiary filing was to be attached is not allocated to any of the govt. functionaries. So basically no functionary takes responsibility not expressly put on him (logical too). There is a full stop between the provision providing for subsidiary attachment and the provision providing for the main filing and there is drafting infirmty in there. Call this problem 3.
• Then there is the bribery required to have all this corrected. And since bribery is involved even if you have all the papers in place and at all levels so people off course prefer to bribe at the lowest levels. Call this problem 4.
• Then the disqualified directors actually went on to work with govt. departments and these govt. departments also accepted their statements and filings. In some cases despite notice. Actually it is the responsibility of MCA to go tell Tax and other regulatory authorities the fact of striking off. But they choose not to go seek confirmations which was not very difficult, given the PAN linked DINs. Call this problem 5.
• Then no notice was given to a lot of these now disqualified directors to explain why their defaulting companies should not be declared dormant. What instead the MCA did was write on all notices for striking off warnings, that the receivers have to make sure that other people meant to receive it be delivered the notice. A simple shifting of responsibility. During the execution stage thus a lot of disqualified directors were not even notified. Call this problem 6.
• With Income tax returns one could have raised the fake concern of revenue leakage. But in the case of annual filings there is not even a revenue leakage involved. No revenue leakage gets decided by the act of filing because the additional fee and penalty provisions exist. But the unjust enrichment does gets involved because fee is understood legally as enrichment by way of an unjustified service charge. Till September 2017 the MCA had allowed the disqualified directors to keep signing forms in other compliant companies and had kept taking fees for these actions. How can they today disqualify from a back date. Call this problem 7.

All this is merely w.r.t. the entities mentioned in the list.

Then there are problems being faced by the companies which simply could not have known or done anything about the missed out filings by the now disqualifed directors. There is no notification procedure involved and most of the now disqualified directors were not trained properly in the legalese. I have seen Ex-Army officers run around in fear lest they will be asked to sign things done under their supervision and advise (interesting stories for other times perhaps). What can you say of lesser civilians. You can cite the unnatural declaration that ignorance of law is no excuse but if the law itself is an ass then what can you expect from the people made to follow that ass. You cannot bend real life to a hypothetical law for any reasonable length of time.

Right now a lot of these disqualified directors have simply washed off their hands from both their struck off companies and the economic vision of the current govt. So they are happy that they don't have to keep track of these struck off companies. But the companies which are now in an inadvertant default for no fault of their own don't even have any prescribed procedure to have the situation rectified. The promoter is expected to act but he himself finds it difficult to hire good directors. There is a big lobby of professionals educated in western traditions, who think that they can read some parts of law and hence they will just while their times and that others should follow their advise. Also till the time he can find a new director, even in cases where his personal liability was limited he immediately becomes personally and wholly liable alongwith the other non-defaulting directors who are also personally liable for no good reason. Unfortunately in the restoratio proceedings, these non defaulting directors cannot even apply for restoration because the law does not allows them to (though there may be exceptions). This even though the law allows workmen, creditors and the members of the struck off company and the and govt. agencies are allowed to apply. If the creditors can then surely the other agrieved directors of compliant companies too should be allowed. But as is the situation, they cannot.

You can refer Sections 164(2), 167, 165, 248, 249 (read 251 and 252 for background though strictly these are not applicable directly but have indirect implications) and 403 alongwith Rule 14 of Companies Appointment of directors rules.

The following will help you understand how people like @Bhoot Pishach indulge in seena zori :



What protest? Where does this even arises. A man hands over the brief to an outside consultant for a price, in the belief that he is being well advised on his company. Seeking advise on legal matters is the basis of all legal administration. Instead he ends up duped. Most times he is not even aware that he has defaulted. How, why and under what provision does this gets discussed or protested in the Board of an unrelated entity? Actually if made known then the board of this unrelated entity will more than happily find alternatives. But most of these unrelated entities would not even know simply because the now disqualified director did not know of his own default in the first place. If some of you remember I had given the example of a day book to be maintained by Doctors in the format prescribed by the Income Tax Deparment. Unfortunately there is hardly any doctor who knows about this because they also hire outside professionals who themselves od only the immidiate work which doesn't leave the doctor any wiser. The whole expectation of privatizing legal administration is bogus. If a CA doesn't end up any wiser about his treatment when done by a doctor then why should a doctor be expected to know any more. The same logic applies to the relationship of these disqualified directors and the directorships they held in other promoter's business.

Where does the occassion of registering protest by resignation arise when the incompetance arises mostly from the hired consultants who are expected to know the law and have a fiduciary duty towards their clients. If your doctor messes up your childs health then you can only take up a moral responsibility being a father, but the material responsibility or real life responsibility rests with the Doctor. Same goes.

Chances are that you did not even get the basic idea of the problem. The problem is not so severe in the companies that had failed to do their filings. The problem is in the companies that had done their filings but that did not have notice of the fact of non-filing of one of the board member in his personal businesses.



Ok ji, valid point. Then allow people to become directors in as many companies as they like. The whole problem arose because of the idiotic limit of 20 directorships per person. Prior to that when a person could be director in as many private companies as he liked this problem never arose. The promoter and his related parties, took direct responsibility of his own business using private companies route, without seeking help from outsiders. There was no need for hiring outsiders from an already inadequate pool of professionals. On the one hand you people argue that outsiders should keep tabs. Then there is no pool of professionals available. And why would people like to take up equal responsibility for unequal work. Will the outside director ever gain as much as the promoter director? If not then why make him responsible as such? Today simply to meet this stupid limit of 20 people have to float ever new shell companies even though the actual protect execution work could be happening in just one company. Even today the Indian borrowers who have the negotiating power refuse to open new SPVs for every funding. Unfortunately for India, most of the business promoters do not fall in the same category as DLF or Godrej or Tata.



Firstly there is no cronyism involved except on part of people like @Bhoot Pishach. These people remain quite when FIIs get to increase their assets and Indian money is used to prop up the stock markets but have problems when Indians come along seeking justice. Most promoters will be more than happy to hire anybody as director because of this artificial limit of 20. But equally people will have to agree to be paid according to what the business promoter considers his worth. This is where most preachy crawlies ki fat jati hai. Reality is people like @Bhoot Pishach want to blackmail the business promoters for their lack of first hand understanding of the surfeit of laws imposed upon them and want to maintain the dependencies this creates. Most of which serve no public cause.

Secondly no person can rationally be made liable for the misdeeds/ignorance/incompetance/mistake of another. Something that should not be so hard to understand. But something that the suo moto striking off ends up doing.
Thirdly this shows the misunderstanding you are labouring under. Almost invariably the promoter's have their kachha baniyan mortgaged right upto their personal assets. None of the real life businessmen care for the so called benefits of Corporate Veil. This is mostly the requirement of the lenders who do not want to share in a pool of security. They do this because they benefit hugely in good times and hence are willing to court losses in bad times (not idiotic times). But why should a layperson be made to share the same responsibility when he cannot benefit and who almost invariably has a different risk-return expectation and cannot even stand against either the promoter or the lenders to enforce his own rights.



What the hell. Had they not cared would they have exposed themselves. But if their consultants educated in the western traditions turn out utter bakwas what the hell can they do?



This here clearly shows your bias in favour of Modi's decision to strike off and against all facts. I was the one who pointed out that some sections are not even notified eg. Section 465 and only some useless ones are eg. Section 166. Do you have an attention deficit problem. Can't you read what you intend to contest?



Lo ulta chor kotwal ko dante. Am I the one supporting a legally unsupported suo moto striking off? The law provides for something which has already been violated by the MCA order. And I am the one looking for personal convenience.

Actually I am not against this striking off of the companies names as such. As I said its cancer for some of the Indians. We have problems that are already affecting all of the Indians. My guesstimate is that Modi also knows some of these continuing problems regarding equal liability of Promoter Directors and Part Time Directors. Probably removing useless companies may be, in his view, a small way of addressing some of these issues. But again he failed to control the job properly or worse still may be the people under him are emboldened by his failure in the Demonetisation and have laid trap doors for their own subsequent bribe taking. Modi merely got gamed due to his own need to come up with something to hide his own failures in demonetisation. The people lower down came up with this unique scheme. The suo moto striking off should have followed some procedures driven towards providing natural justice to people not intended to be disturbed but who nonetheless now feel fooled. Instead it was driven by a procedure that was intended for shifting responsibilities. Worst part is actually the back dating of disqualifications of directors which needs to be addressed which actually creates all the difficulties and not the striking off of the names of the companies.

Sorry @Bhoot Pishach , no time for colouring. Next time I will make sure to fill in colours and add some drawings for you too.

Out of curiosity, where do you work? I usually balk at the idea of having to read > 21 lines (screen length) on forum posts and forget about posting longer.
I do appreciate the details you put in. Just wanted to know if your line of work is also in the same direction.
PS: If possible highlight which 21 lines I must focus on ;-)

 

[sorcerer]

Factory output growth jumps to 9-month high in August, inflation eases


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...august-inflation-eases/videoshow/61054942.cms