Easy Office

Intercorporate Loan by Private Company

Page no : 2

CS Pooja (Company Secretary) (305 Points)
Replied 21 April 2011

Thanks. In our case Director of Comapany 'A' has become director of COmapny 'B' in July 2010. and Company 'A' and ompany 'B' have debtor -creditor relationship.

Company 'A' is unlisted pub Ltd co having paid up capital of 20 cr and Company 'B' is Pvt com.

What back deted compliances I need to do regarding disclosure of Interest and other related sections?

Regards,

Pooja


CA Ishaan (Chartered Accountant) (453 Points)
Replied 21 April 2011

Madam,

You should have disclosed these details much earlier. I was labouring under the assumption that both companies are Pvt ltd. According to the new information, Section 372A becomes applicable and the matter gets infinitely complicated.

I will get back to you about what compliances you need to follow after I take into account this new information.

I hope the arrangment only involves loans and not goods, services, underwriting of shares etc, since that would make Section 297 also applicable.

I will get back to you after I have considered the various angularities in detail and the applicable legal framework, you can expect my reply by tommorrow.

 

Thanks and Regards

 


CS Pooja (Company Secretary) (305 Points)
Replied 21 April 2011

I think I have confused you.

There are two different situations

Case I: Private Limited comapny is thinking of giving loan for purchasing machineries or lands to Sister Companies which inclueds some Pvt Co's and one unlisted pub Co having Paid up capital of 20 Cr.

now tell me whether Pvt co can give suh loans? and also tell me 24AA disclosures.

Case II: Director and MD of Unlisted Pub co having paid up capital of 20 Cr have become Directors of newly incorporated co in July 2010.Newly icorporated co started supplying materials to Mentiond public co from October  2010. Which compliances were required at that time under section 299,300,301, 297 or under any other section in both the companies. and what is the solution this now?

Regards,

Pooja


CA Ishaan (Chartered Accountant) (453 Points)
Replied 21 April 2011

Is this newly incorporate company a Pvt Ltd company or is it a Public Ltd comapny


CS Pooja (Company Secretary) (305 Points)
Replied 21 April 2011

Case II: Newly incorporated company is Pvt co

what is your opinion for Case :I

Regards,

Pooja



CA Ishaan (Chartered Accountant) (453 Points)
Replied 21 April 2011

Please give following latest details about the lender of loan and reply to my email address ifaimad @ gmail.com   since this is private information and disclosing it on a public forum would attract legal penalties:

1. Paid-up share capital

2. Free reserves

3. loans and investments made so far  to other bodies corporate

4. security and guarantees given in respect of other bodies corporate

5. details of loan to be provided now.

6. if the lender has defaulted in repayment of loans/interest taken from a Public Financial institution

 

Is this New Pvt Ltd co. a subsidiary of the unlisted Public ltd co?? What is the nature of these 'sister concerns'? Is it a holding-subsidiary relationship. If subsidiary, is it wholly-owned subsidiary???

Also provide details of how many directors are common, since there would be a problem of interested directors being more than non-interested directors.

Again , please dont bring this information on this platform , send an email, i will consider your info in light of various legal provisions and give you an informed answer.

Thanks and Regards

 

 


Hardik Jitendra Desai (Relationship Manager) (25 Points)
Replied 03 July 2012

As per Section 292 (1) (C) of the COmpanies Act 1956,

Private Limited Company can give loan to Public Limited Company.

* Regional Director has raised quiery.

 

if any one know plz let me know with case law.


Avani Thakkar (Article) (22 Points)
Replied 22 August 2013

 



Legality:

1.       Section 372A(8) very clearly elucidates that a Pvt Ltd company is not covered by Section 372A.

2.       372A talks about applicability in case of Pvt Ltd which is a subsidiary of Public Ltd. Hence if the Holding company is not Public Ltd, then there is no scope for Section 372A to become operative

3.        Section 3 of The Companies Act, 1956 restrains a Pvt. Ltd co. from accepting deposits from any persons other than  shareholders, directors and their relatives. However, the definition of ‘deposits’ u/s. 58A read with Rule 2 of The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits Rule), 1975 specifically excludes inter-corporate loans.

Based on the above two points, it can be concluded that a Pvt Ltd co. is not statutorily barred from indulging in inter-corporate transactions

Procedures:


Generally sister companies have common directors.

Hence provisions relating to compliance in that regard need to be followed.

Section 300(1) of The Companies Act, 1956 mandates that in case of directors who are interested in case of a particular contract/arrangement in which he is directly/indirectly interested, then he is not eligible to participate in the discussion or vote in that regards in BOD meetings. However, Section 300(2) exempts a Pvt Ltd co which is neither a subsidiary or Holding company of a Public Ltd co from Section 300(1). Hence it does not apply in your case.

By virtue of Section 295(1)(c), a company cannot lend to a Pvt ltd co if there are common directors or if the director of the lending company is member of that pvt ltd co. However, according to Section 295(2)(a)(i), Section 295(1) is only applicable to pvt ltd co which is a subsidiary of a Public Ltd co.

According to Section 299(6), only if the directors’ shareholding  in the borrowing company exceeds 2% of the paid up capital, then the directors should disclose their interest according to the prescribed procedure in Section 299. No distinction has been made in Section 299 between Public and Pvt Ltd Co and hence it can be concluded that Section 299 would be operational in your case. Accordingly common/ interested directors need to give a general notice to the BOD that they are interested/ concerned in a particular contract or arrangement. This would be sufficient disclosure. Such notice, however, would expire at the end of the Financial Year and would need to be renewed, one FY at a time, in the last month of the FY in which it is due to expire. Additionally, no such general notice or renewal would be of effect and consequence if it is not given at a BOD meeting or if the concerned director does not take reasonable steps to have it brought up and read at the BOD meeting. Contravention of Section 299 is punishable with a fine of Rs. 50,000. Additionally, Section, 299(5) also states that if there are other laws which restrict such contracts/arrangements, then those laws would have an over-riding effect.

Particulars of such contract /arrangement needs to be kept according in the manner prescribed u/s. 301

It can be derived from Section 299, that a BOD resolution would suffice. Additionally, according to Section 292, BOD resolution is needed to make loans and also to take loans.
 



Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Join CCI Pro


Subscribe to the latest topics :

Search Forum: