Skip to main content

What are the eligibility Criteria for Start-up India Initiative

 The Indian Start-up ecosystem has clearly taken the nation by storm. Backed by factors like massive funding, consolidation activities, driven workforce and a massive domestic market, the fever of entrepreneurial spirit has mushroomed across various cities with such ferocious speed that the country is now being recognized as the biggest start-up hub in the world.


Recognizing the potential and talent of this young entrepreneurial rage, Government has also launched various schemes and plans to promote it. One such move is the Start-up India initiative. Launched on 16th January 2016, the scheme aims to promote Start-ups in India. The government has also published a notification on the eligibility of a Start-up for this scheme. The following eligibility criteria are –


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Private company, Partnership or LLP

It must be an entity registered or incorporated as Private Limited Company under Indian Companies Act, 2013 or a Limited Liability Partnership under Indian Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 or a Partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

 


5 years must not have elapsed since creation

All Start-ups which have been incorporated or registered within past five years from the effective date of this are eligible to participate in this scheme.

 


Not formed by splitting or restructuring

If a Start-up was formed by splitting an organization into two or more organizations, it would not be eligible under this scheme. Similarly, an organization formed by reconstructing an organization shall also be ineligible.

 


Annual Turnover not over 25 crores

Annual Turnover of a start-up must not have exceeded rupees twenty-five crores in any of the past years since its incorporation or registration. Turnover means the aggregate value of the amount realized from the supply of goods or provision of services during a particular financial year.


Consult: Top Start-up Lawyers in India

 


Approval from DIPP that your business is innovative

Every Start-up has to obtain approval from the Inter-Ministerial Board set up by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). To obtain approval, you will have to submit an application to corroborate the innovative nature of your business along with supporting documents. Such as:


Recommendation from an incubator established in Post-Graduate College in India


Recommendation from an incubator funded by the Government of India in relation to a scheme to promote innovation


Recommendation from an incubator recognized by Government of India


Letter of at least 20% Equity Funding from an Incubation Fund or Angel Fund or Private Equity Fund or Accelerator or Angel Network, registered with Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Such fund must not be listed in the negative list of funds as may be issued by DIPP in future.


Letter of funding from Central Government or State Government as a part of any scheme to promote innovation


The patent, filed and published in the Journal of Indian Patent Office, in areas affiliated with the nature of the business being promoted.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more