CA Final Law Exam... Awesome

can you tell me please ans of FEMA qus 

Residential status of Mr. Bhattacharyya...???

It was for deciding .. whether he is PRI or not ...

and the ans should be ... No....

Because his stay in india is less than 183 days...

and when he came for employment.. it is not countable...

Regards,

Shammi...

Paper was decent enough though allied laws were given more weightage than directors which i didnt like

i had  not solved  that question

its  a  dolly paper

Easy paper and Mr bhattacharya is PROI..

q.1.a    sec  205  10% 

for  205  special  permission  of  cg

q.1.b.   need  to  submit  before  29  oct  ,  extenstion  can  be  asked  from  registrar for   3  months 

in the  absence  ot  any  extension  its  is  violation  of  sec  210

c.   no  gansham  and  co  cant  do  that

d. share holder  dnt  have  any  right  under sec  209  of  compnies  act  

cg, registrar , company  law  board  , sebi  , rbi  for  specific  purpose  and  director  by  himself  or  through  agent   have  a  right 

@ Sammi...

I think you have not look up upon the Financial Year...

qus is asking about FY 2010-11 and there is noting given in qus about FY 2009-10 and to determine residential status we have to check previous year counts.... so I think you have done a mistake....

sorry dude... i m not creating panic here.. but want to say that today paper was not so easy as seems....

q.2.a   450 cr  specical resolution  in  anuunal  metting  sec  292 

b.  list  a  and  list  b 

Originally posted by : Shammi Prabhakar
	It was for deciding .. whether he is PRI or not ... and the ans should be ... No.... Because his stay in india is less than 183 days... and when he came for employment.. it is not countable...   Regards, Shammi...

Check what data about F.Y they gave and What F.Y. they asked.

Res status is Resident in India..(after making assumption)

Originally posted by : srinivasan
	Paper was decent enough though allied laws were given more weightage than directors which i didnt like

Thats true.. but paper was not tough....

q.3.a.  its  not  a  substaineable  objection 

nor  even  if  central  govt  object   391  and  394

q.3.b. sec  11  sebi  

remedy   sta  first  appeal  and  sup.  court  second  appeal

@ Raam... I dont know about Q1c but what i seen practically Brocker Company always done trading for their own and also on behalf of Investors.......... so I think ans of 1c should be Yes.. I dont knw about Securities Contract (Regulation) Act...

q.4.a  not  sure  ...reamedy  is there to  go  with  a  enhancement  to  CG  and  then  to  HC   and  SUP COURT 

B.. 293  B    5%  OF  AVERAGE  3 YEARS  PROFIT

LESS THAN  3 YEARS  FROM  REGISTRATION   NO  DONATION  ALLOWED

I M EVEN  NOT SURE  FOR THAT  BUT  I HAD  DID  IN  SHARE  TRADING  THE  SMALL  COMPANY  GET MANAGED  BY  RUGALATORS  AND  THEY  ARE  ILLEGAL  FURTURE  THE   COMPANY  CANT  DEAL  ON SHARES  AS  SAID  IN PROBLEM  TO  DEAL  ON  BEHALF OF  COMPANY  AND  ON BEHALF  OF   INVESTORS