Skip to main content

Foreign Company

                                  Foreign Company


Companies Act 1956 Did not have any definition of Foreign Company. As per Section 591 of Companies Act 1956 foreign company means companies incorporated outside India which have established place of business within India where not less than fifty per cent , of the paid –up share capital of a company incorporated outside India and having an established place of business in India, is held by one or more citizens of India or by one or more bodies corporate incorporated in India, or by one or more citizens of India and one or more bodies corporate incorporated in India whether singly or in aggregate. 

        Companies Act 2013 Defines Foreign Company for the first time. As per Section 2(42) of Companies Act 2013 “foreign company” means any company or body corporate incorporated outside and has a place of business in India whether by itself or through an agent ,physically or through electronic mode ; and b) conducts any business activity in India in any other manner

        As per Rule 2(1)(c) of the Companies (Registration of Foreign Companies) Rules 2014, for the purposes of clause (42) of Section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, “electronic mode” means carrying out electronically based, whether main server is installed in India or not, including but not limited to business and to consumer transactions, data interchange and other digital supply transactions. offering to accept deposits or inviting deposits or accepting deposits or subscriptions in securities in India or from citizens of India.

         Financial settlements, web based marketing, advisory and transaction services, database services and products, supply chain management Online services such as telemarketing, telecommuting, telemedicine, education and information researches all related data communication services, whether conducted by email, mobile devices, social media etc.

          As per Section 379 of Companies Act 2013, where not less than fifty percent of the paid share capital, whether equity or preference or partly equity and partly preference, of a foreign company is held by one or more citizens of India or by one or more companies or bodies corporate incorporated in India, or by one or more citizens of India and one or more companies or bodies corporate incorporated in India, whether singly or in the aggregate, such company shall comply with provisions of chapter XXII and such other provisions of Companies Act 2013 as may be prescribed with regard to the business carried on by it in India as if it were a company incorporated in India. Impact of New Definition of Foreign Company under Companies Act 2013 

           Companies Act 2013 has expanded the scope of the definition of Foreign Company. Under the Companies Act 2013 need for physical presence has been done away with, as the company or body corporate incorporated outside India with no physical presence yet having virtual presence are covered under new definition of Foreign Company under Companies Act 2013. 

          Companies in media and broadcasting business like Zee Entertainment Enterprise Limited which have foreign subsidiaries like Asia Today Limited which render satellite services to the group will now be covered under the new definition of Foreign Company under Companies Act 2013. 

             Indian Asset Management Companies with foreign subsidiaries in countries like Singapore and Mauritius making investments in Indian securities or Indian mutual funds will now be covered under the new definition of Foreign Company under Companies Act 2013. 

        Online travel companies with joint venture with several airlines selling tickets of those airlines on their online portal will now be covered under new definition of Foreign Company under Companies Act 2013.

       Airline companies who operate through their booking agents in India will now be covered under new definition of Foreign Company under Companies Act 2013. Subsidiary of Foreign Holding Company. 

            As per Section 4(7) of the Companies Act 1956 , a private company being a subsidiary of a body corporate incorporated outside India ,which if incorporated in India would be a public company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1956 shall be deemed for the purposes of the Companies Act 1956 to be a subsidiary of a public company if the entire share capital in that private company is not held by that body corporate whether alone or together with one or more other bodies corporate incorporated outside India. Therefore one can say that as per Section 4(7) of the Companies Act 1956, private company incorporated in India would be deemed public company if it is a subsidiary of a public company incorporated out side India except those private company whose entire share capital is held by a public company incorporated outside India whether alone or together with one or more other bodies corporate incorporated outside India. Foreign Companies used this provision to operate in India through subsidiaries which are private companies as per Section 4(7) of the Companies Act 1956. 

          Companies Act 2013 does not have provision similar to Section 4(7) of the Companies Act 1956 . As per proviso to Section 2(71), a company which is a subsidiary of a company, not being a private company, shall be deemed to be a public company for the purposes of the Companies Act 2013 even where such subsidiary company continues to be private company in its articles. 

           Clarification issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs As per clarification issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs , an existing company being subsidiary of the company incorporated outside India registered under Companies Act 1956,either as private company or public company by virtue of the Section 4(7) of the Companies Act 2013 will continue as private company or public company as the case may be without any change in incorporation status of such company . The said clarification also clarifies that there is no bar in the Companies Act 2013 for a company incorporated out side India to incorporate subsidiary in India either as public company or a private company. 

             Impact on Foreign Investment Such ambiguity in law generally affects the foreign investments in India as Foreign Companies generally operate through private subsidiary companies in India .


Comments

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

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

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