ANNUAL FILING FOR LLP - LAW AND PRACTICE

Limited Liability Partnership Concerns (LLPs) unlike Partnership Firms registered under the Indian Partnership Act 1932, are required to comply with more statutory compliances periodically. Similar to the Companies registered under the Companies Act, LLPs are required to file their financial statements with the Registrar annually and such annual filing documents are available for public inspection.

However unlike a Limited Company, the requirement for annual filing is not one and the same for every LLP. Financial criteria has been fixed depending on which the requirement to appoint an Auditor will arise. In rest of the cases there is no mandate to appoint an Auditor and Audit the accounts of the LLP.

The Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 [LLP Act] and the Limited Liability Partnership Rules, 2009 [LLP Rules] provides detailed provisions relating to the financial disclosures to be made by every LLP.

Corresponding Provisions from LLP Act:

 I.            Maintenance of Books of Accounts: Section 34:

• Section 34 of the LLP Act stipulates that every LLP shall maintain such proper books of account as may be prescribed relating to its affairs for each year of its existence at its registered office for such period as may be prescribed.
•  Every LLP shall, within a period of six months from the end of each financial year, prepare a Statement of Account and Solvency for the said financial year as at the last day of the said financial year in such form as may be prescribed.
• Such statement shall be signed by the designated partners of the LLP and filed with the Registrar every year in such form and manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.

II.            Annual Return : Section 35:

Annual return shall be filed with the Registrar within sixty days of closure of its financial year in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.

ANNUAL COMPLIANCES:

       I.            FILING OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND SOLVENCY:

• Books of accounts to be maintained by the LLP in prescribed form and manner.
• Such books of accounts shall be preserved for eight years from the date on which they are made.[1]
• Statement of Account and Solvency duly signed by the Designated Partners shall be filed by every LLP in Form 8 with the Registrar, within a period of thirty days from the end of six months of the financial year to which the Statement of Account and Solvency relates. Therefor for a financial year ended 31^st March 2016, Form 8 has to be filed within September 2016.[2]

    II.            REQUIREMENT OF AUDIT:

• A LLP whose turnover does not exceed, in any financial year, forty lakh rupees, or whose contribution does not exceed twenty-five lakh rupees shall not be required to get its accounts audited.[3]
• Where the partners of such LLP do not decide for audit of the accounts of the LLP, such LLP shall include in the Statement of Account and Solvency a statement by the partners to the effect that the partners acknowledge their responsibilities for complying with the requirements of the Act and the Rules with respect to preparation of books of account and a certificate in the form specified in Form 8.
• A person shall not be qualified for appointment as an auditor of a limited liability partnership unless he is a Chartered Accountant in practice.
• Such Auditor may be appointed by the designated partners:[4]

a) at any time for the first financial year but before the end of the first financial year, 

 at least 30 days prior to the end of the each financial year (other than the first                   financial year)

b)   to fill a casual vacancy in the office of auditor, including in the case when the turnover or contribution of a limited liability partnership exceeds the limits specified.

c)  to fill up the vacancy caused by removal of an auditor.

The partners may appoint an auditor or auditors where the designated partners have power to appoint have failed to do the same.[5]

III.            FILING OF ANNUAL RETURN:

• Every LLP shall file an annual return with the Registrar in Form 11.
• In case of an LLP having turnover up to five crores rupees during the corresponding financial year or contribution up to fifty lakh rupees a certificate from a designated partner, other than the signatory to the annual return shall be annexed to the Form to the effect that annual return contains true and correct information.
• In all other cases, the annual return shall be accompanied with a certificate from a Company Secretary in practice to the effect that he has verified the particulars from the books and records of the LLP and found them to be true and correct.

IV.            ROC FILING FEE:[6]

S.NO	AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION (In Rs)	FILING FEE (In Rs)
1.	Less than 1 Lakh	50
2.	1 Lakh to 5 Lakhs	100
3.	5 Lakhs to 10 Lakhs	150
4.	More than 10 Lakhs	200

OFFENCES AND PENALITIES:

       I.            DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 34[7]:

Penalty levied on the LLP	Fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees
Penalty levied on the Designated Partner	Fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees

       I.            DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 35[8]:

Penalty levied on the LLP	Fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees
Penalty levied on the Designated Partner	Fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees

---

[1] Rule 24 (3) of the LLP Rules 2009

[2] Rule 24 (4) of the LLP Rules 2009

[3] Rule 24 (8) of the LLP Rules 2009

[4] Rule 24 (11) of the LLP Rules 2009

[5] Rule 24 (14) of the LLP Rules 2009

[6] Annexure A of the LLP Rules 2009

[7] Subsection (5) of Section 34 of the LLP Act

[8] Subsection (3) of Section 35 of the LLP Act

Constitutional validity of SARFAESI Act 2002

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I

Citation:  (2004) 4 SCC 311

Bench: Supreme Court of India: CJI Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar

Introduction: 

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was passed with an object of giving additional powers to the borrowers in realizing the NPAs. The said legislation was challenged before many Courts as the same is unconstitutional, arbitrary and against natural justice. Also it was stated as leaning more towards the lenders. 

The Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I. & Ors, upheld the constitutional validity of the said Act and elaborated the provisions of the enactment in detail which cleared ambiguity arose out of this enactment before. 

Why SARFAESI Act was challenged?

In the said case, the SARFAESI Act was challenged as unconstitutional and arbitrary. In this regard, the following questions were raised before the court:

• Whether Sections 13 and 17 of the Act provide adequate and efficacious mechanism to consider and decide the objections/disputes raised by a borrower against the recovery,
• Whether the remedy available under Section 17 of the Act is illusory for the reason it is available only after the action is taken under Section 13(4) of the Act and the appeal would be entertained only on deposit of 75% of the claim raised in the notice of demand?
• Whether the terms or existing rights under the contract entered into by two private parties could be amended by the provisions of law providing certain powers in one sided manner in favour of one of the parties to the contract?
• Whether provision for sale of the properties without intervention of the court under Section 13 of the Act is akin to the English mortgage and its effect on the scope of the bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court?
• Whether the provisions under Sections 13 and 17(2) of the Act are unconstitutional on the basis of the parameters laid down in different decisions of this Court?
• Whether the principle of lender's liability has been absolutely ignored while enacting the Act and its effect?

Points of Law discussed:

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act and the points of law discussed in the said case are hereunder:

1. A specific enactment for recovery of NPAs is much needed:

•     When the need for a specific enactment (When there is already Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993) for recovery of NPAs is questioned, the Supreme Court answered it in affirmative.
• Pointing out the recommendations of the Narashimman Committee, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for faster recovery process to recover the NPAs to ensure healthy and growth oriented economy.
• Also the Supreme Court highlighted that SARFAESI Act is much needed even in the existence of DRT Act 1993 and pointed out the failure on the part of Debt recovery Tribunals in bringing desired results in this regard.

     2. Safeguards available to the borrowers:

• Section 13 (2) mandates that a notice shall be served upon the borrower in this regard and  a reply may be submitted by the borrower explaining the reasons as to why measures may or may not be taken under Section 13 (4) in case of non- compliance of notice within 60 days. 
• The intention of this provision is that the creditor must apply its mind to the objections raised in reply to such notice and an internal mechanism must be particularly evolved to consider such      objections raised in the reply to the notice. 
• Once the same is done this is sufficient for ensuring principles of fairness on the part of the banks and financial institutions in dealing with their borrowers.
•  Communication of reasons not to accept the objections of the borrower, would certainly be for the purpose of his knowledge which would be a step forward towards his right to know as to why his objections have not been accepted by the secured creditor who intends to resort to harsh steps of taking over the management/business of viz. 
• The next safeguard available to a secured borrower within the framework of the Act is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Such a right accrues only after measures are taken under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. 

    3. on precondition to deposit 75% of the claim on appeal:

Such condition to deposit was not only declared as onerous and oppressive but also held unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore provisions of 17 (2)  of the Act relating to predeposit of claim money was declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the same was struck down.

Miheer H Mafatlal Vs Mafatlal Industries Limited - Case study

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 506, (1997) 1 SCC 579

Bench: Supreme Court of India : S.B.Majumdar J

Introduction: 

• A Scheme of Amalgamation of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited [MIL] being the Transferee Company and Mafatlal Fine Spinning  and Manufacturing Company  Limited  [MFL] being the Transferor Company was proposed

• The Learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court had sanctioned the said scheme in Company Petition No. 22 of 1994.

• Appeal was filed against the impugned Judgment before the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Appeal No. 16 of 1994 and the said Appeal was also dismissed.

• Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Division Bench, the Appellant filed an Appeal by Special Leave before the Supreme Court.

Background Facts of the case:

1. Transferor Company: [MFL]:

MFL was incorporated on 20th April 1931 under the Baroda State Companies Act and had been carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of textile piece goods and chemicals. Its registered office was situated at Mafatlal Centre, Nariman Point, Bombay. It was engaged in the manufacture and sale of textiles and fluorine based chemicals.

2. Transferee Company: [MIL]:

MIL was incorporated on 20th January 1913 under the name 'The New Shorrock Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Limited' and its name was subsequently changed to 'Mafatlal Industries Limited' as per the fresh Certificates of Incorporation dated 24th January 1974. Its registered office was situated at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The objects of MIL includes carrying on all or any of the businesses such as cotton spinners and doublers, wool, silk flax, jute and hemp spinners and doublers etc,.

3. Appellant:

The appellant who has objected to the amalgamation before the High Court of Gujarat is one of the directors of MFL.

4. Amalgamation:

Meeting of shareholders of the Company were convened and the Scheme was approved by the overwhelming majority of shareholders.

Grounds of appeal:

The following four important considerations were raised by the Appellant in the present case.

1.      Non -Disclosure of Interest of Directors :MIL while placing the scheme before the equity shareholders meeting did not disclose the interest of the directors, namely, Shri Arvind Mafatlal and Shri Hrishikesh Mafatlal in the explanatory statement supporting the Scheme and hence the shareholders were misled and could not come to an informed decision.

2.   The Scheme is unfair to the minority shareholders

3.  The appellant represented a distinct class of equity shareholders so far as the respondent transferee -company is concerned and consequently separate meeting so far as his group is concerned should have been convened by the Company Court.

4.   Share exchange Ratio was unreasonable: As it provides under the Scheme that two equity shares of the transferee company will be allotted against five equity shares of the transferor- company at their respective face value of Rs. 100/- per share

Points of Law discussed:

Scope and Ambit of Jurisdiction of Company Court:

Broad principles concerned with the Jurisdiction of the Company Court were laid down. While considering and sanctioning the scheme of Amalgamation, the Court has to see,

1.   That the requisite statutory procedure for supporting such a scheme has been complied with and that the requisite meeting as contemplated by Section 391(1) (a) have been held.

2.    That the scheme is backed up by the requisite majority vote as required by Section 391(2).

3.   That the concerned meetings of the creditors or members or any class of them had the relevant material to enable the voters to arrive at an informed decision for approving the scheme in question.

4.     That all the necessary material indicated by Section 393(1) (a) is placed before the voters at the concerned meetings.

5.     That all the requisite material contemplated by Section 391(2) of the Act is placed before the Court by the Applicant

6.     That the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement is not found to be violative of any provision of law and is not contrary to public policy

7.    That the Company Court has also to satisfy itself that members or class of members or creditors or class of creditors as the case may be, were acting bona fide and in good faith and were not coercing the minority in order to promote any interest adverse to that of the latter comprising of the same class whom they purported to represent.

8.     That the scheme as a whole is also found to be just, fair and reasonable from the point of view of prudent men of business taking a commercial decision beneficial to the class represented by them for whom the scheme is meant.

     Once the aforesaid broad parameters about the requirements of a scheme for getting sanction of the Court are found to have been met, the Court will have no further jurisdiction to sit in appeal over

Concept of commercial wisdom: Jurisdiction of Company Court:

• The question whether the Company Court has jurisdiction like an appellate authority to minutely scrutinize the scheme and to arrive at an independent conclusion whether the scheme should be permitted to go through or not when the same is approved by majority of the creditors or members of the company was answered by the Court in negative.

• The following lines are quoted in this regard:

“It is the commercial wisdom of the parties to the scheme who have taken an informed decision about the usefulness and propriety of the scheme by supporting it by the requisite majority vote that has to be kept in view by the Court. The Court certainly would not act as a court of appeal and sit in judgment over the informed view of the concerned parties to the compromise as the same would be in the realm of corporate and commercial wisdom of the concerned parties. The Court has neither the expertise nor the jurisdiction to delve deep into the commercial wisdom exercised by the creditors and members of the company who have ratified the Scheme by the requisite majority. Consequently the Company Court's jurisdiction to that extent is peripheral and supervisory and not appellate. The Court acts like an umpire in a game of cricket who has to see that both the teams play their according to the rules and do not overstep the limits. But subject to that how best the game is to be played is left to the players and not to the umpire.”

On issues raised:

  1.  On Non – Disclosure of interest of a director:

• This issue was dismissed and the following observations were made in this regard.

·       "If the special interest which the director has is in any way likely to be affected by the Scheme and if non-disclosure of such an interest is likely to affect the voting pattern of the class of creditors or shareholders who are called upon to vote on the scheme, then only such special interest of the director is required to be communicated to the voters as per Section 393(1) (a)."

•  Consequently the interest of Arvind Mafatlal in the share-holding or likely future impact thereon by the litigation was de hors the Scheme in question and was not required to be placed before the voters. Therefore the same is not valid ground of objection.

  2.  On the Scheme being unfair and unreasonable.

• The Supreme Court declared that the Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement is neither unfair nor unreasonable to the minority shareholders represented by the appellant as the scheme was approved by the overwhelming majority of the shareholders of the Company and it is not proved that the interest of the minority is prejudiced by the scheme.

• It was stated that the financial institutions and statutory corporations held substantive percentage of shares in respondent-company. This class of shareholders who are naturally well informed about the business requirements and economic needs and the requirements of corporate finance wholly approved the Scheme if it was contrary to the interest of shareholders as class. The following lines are quoted in this regard:

     “It could not be said that the majority shareholders had sacrificed the class interest of           appellant minority shareholders when they voted with overwhelming majority in favour of the Scheme.”

   3. On Appellant’s plea to be treated as a separate class of shareholders:

Quoting Palmer in this Treatise Company Law 24th Edition, it was held that unless a separate and different type of Scheme of Compromise is offered to a sub- class of a class of creditors or shareholders no separate meeting of such sub-class of the main class of members or creditors is required to be convened

4. On Valuation of shares:

• In this regard, reference was made to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamala Sugar Mills Limited [55 Company Cases P.308] which dealt with an identical objection about the exchange ratio adopted in the Scheme. 

             "Once the exchange ratio of the shares of the transferee-company to be allotted to the                       shareholders of the transferor-company has been worked out by a recognized firm of                       chartered accountants who are experts in the field of valuation and if no mistake can be                   pointed out in the said valuation, it is not for the court to substitute its exchange ratio,                     especially when the same has been accepted without demur by the overwhelming majority               of the shareholders of the two companies or to say that the shareholders in their collective                wisdom should not have accepted the said exchange ratio on the ground that it will be                       determined to their interest."

   

             Therefore share exchange ratio fixed by experts who are certified professionals will not be                   disturbed unless the same is contrary to the provisions of law

ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS BY COMPANIES - SUBSTANTIVE & PROCEDURAL LAW

The Companies Act 2013, consolidates provisions relating to acceptance of Deposits by Companies in 4 Sections, in particular from Sections 73 to 76 as contained in Chapter V. When sections 73 and 76 of the Act provides or law relating to issue of future deposits , Sections 74 and 75 deals with past deposits that exists at the time of commencement of the Act. Further the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits Rules) 2014 was notified and came into effect from 01.04.2014.

Definition of Deposits – Inclusions and Exclusions:

The term Deposits include, any receipt of money by way of deposit or loan or in any other form, by a company.[1]

However the following are excluded from the definition of deposits:

·         Any amount received from the Central Government /State Government/or any amount whose repayment is guaranteed by the Central / State Government. Any amount received from a local / statutory authority constituted under an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature ;

·         (ii) any amount received from foreign Governments, foreign or international banks, multilateral financial institutions, foreign Governments owned development financial institutions, foreign export credit agencies, foreign collaborators, foreign bodies corporate and foreign citizens, foreign authorities or persons resident outside India subject to the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) and rules and regulations made there under;

·          any amount received as a loan or facility from any banking company or from the State Bank of India or any of its subsidiary banks or from a banking institution notified by the Central Government, or a corresponding new bank as defined in Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980  , or from a co-operative bank ;

·         Any amount received as a loan or financial assistance from Public Financial Institutions notified by the Central Government in this behalf or any regional financial institutions or Insurance Companies or Scheduled Banks

·         Any amount received against issue of commercial paper or any other instruments issued in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI

·         Any amount received by a company from any other company;

·         Any amount received and held pursuant to an offer made in accordance with the provisions of the Act towards subscription to any securities.

Acceptance of future deposits – Conditions Precedent

Section 73 of the Act , provides for the manner in which Deposits are to be accepted by the companies.

A company can accept deposits only upon satisfaction of the following conditions:

·         Issuance of a circular to its members. Such notice shall include a statement showing

a)      the financial position of the company,

b)      the credit rating obtained,

c)      the total number of depositors

d)     amount due towards deposits in respect of any previous deposits accepted by the company

e)      such other particulars in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed;

·       Appointment of Deposit Trustees No company shall issue aforesaid circular or advertisement inviting secured deposits unless the company has appointed one or more deposit trustees for creating security for the deposits. [2]

·        filing a copy of the circular along with such statement with the Registrar within thirty days before the date of issue of the circular;

·         Depositing such sum which shall not be less than 15% of the amount of its deposits maturing during a financial year and the financial year next following, in a scheduled bank in a separate bank account to be called as “Deposit repayment reserve account”. [3]Such amount shall not be used for any other purpose other than repayment of deposits.[4]

·          providing such deposit insurance in such manner and to such extent as may be prescribed;[5]

·       certifying that the company has not committed any default in the repayment of deposits accepted either before or after the commencement of this Act or payment of interest on such deposits;

·         Providing security, if any for the due repayment of the amount of deposit or the interest thereon including the creation of such charge on the property or assets of the company.[6]

Unsecured Deposits:

Where a company does not secure the deposits or secures such deposits partially, then, the deposits shall be termed as ‘‘unsecured deposits’’ and shall be so quoted in every circular, form, advertisement or in any document related to invitation or acceptance of deposits.[7]

Repayment of Deposits:

Every deposit accepted by a company shall be repaid with interest in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon. Where a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest thereon, the depositor concerned may apply to the Tribunal[8] seeking the company to pay the sum due or for any loss or damage incurred by him as a result of such non-payment and for such other orders as the Tribunal may deem fit. [9]

Non – Applicability of Section 73:

Section 73 (1) shall not apply to

a)      a banking company

b)      nonbanking financial company as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

c)      to such other company as the Central Government may, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, specify in this behalf. 

Acceptance of Deposits from Public:

Section 76 lays down conditions precedent for accepting deposits from persons other than its members. Section 76 applies to a Public Company having turnover/net worth as may be prescribed. The following are the ingredients of Section 76 for acceptance of deposits from public[10]:

·   Procedural Compliance : Compliance of Section 73(2) and subject to such rules as the Central Government may, in consultation with the RBI may prescribe.

·       Credit rating:  In Order to ensure safety of the deposit holders, Section 76 mandates that the company shall obtain the rating (including its net worth, liquidity and ability to pay its deposits on due date) from a recognized credit rating agency. Such rating shall be done in a periodical basis (every year during the tenure of deposits)  and shall be informed to the public.

·         Charge on assets: Every company accepting secured deposits from the public shall within thirty days of such acceptance, create a charge on its assets of an amount not less than the amount of deposits accepted in favour of the deposit holders in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.

·         Applicability of Provisions pertaining to acceptance of deposits prescribed under Chapter V[11]

 Deposits Accepted Prior to the Commencement of this Act:

Section 74 of the Act provides for the following statutory requirements for deposits accepted prior to the commencement of the Act:

·         Filing of statement with ROC: The company is required to file with the Registrar a statement of all the deposits accepted by the company and sums remaining unpaid on such amount with the interest payable thereon along with the arrangements made for such repayment.

·    Repayment of Deposits: The Company shall repay the same within one year from such commencement or from the date on which such payments are due, whichever is earlier.

    

      Grant of Further time: 

 The Tribunal may on an application made by the company, may grant further time for repayment of deposits after considering factors likethe financial condition of the company, the amount of deposit or part thereof and the interest payable thereon and such other matters.

Penality for Non – Compliance:

If a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest thereon within the time specified in 74(1) or (2) as the case may be, the company shall, in addition to the payment of the sum due, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than one crore rupees but which may extend to ten crore rupees.

Every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five lakh rupees but which may extend to two crore rupees, or with both.

Fraud:

Section 75 in addition to the remedy available for the aggrieved depositor under Section 74(3) provides additional remedy in event of fraud committed by the Company/ officers in charge of the Company in repayment of deposits.

If it is proved that the deposits had been accepted with intent to defraud the depositors or for any fraudulent purpose,  every officer of the company who was responsible for the acceptance of such deposit shall be personally responsible, without any limitation of liability, for all or any of the losses or damages that may have been incurred by the depositors.

 Any suit, proceedings or other action may be taken by any person, group of persons or any association of persons who had incurred any loss as a result of the failure of the company to repay the deposits or part thereof or any interest thereon.

However remedy under this Section is available without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 74(3) and section 447 of the Act.

Notifications & Circulars on Acceptance of Deposits – A Snapshot:

·         Amounts received by private companies prior to 16t April, 2Ol4 shall not be treated as 'deposits' under the Companies Act, 2013 and Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 subject to the condition that relevant private company shall disclose, in the notes to its financial statement for the financial year commencing on or after 1^st April, 2014 the figure of such amounts and the accounting head in which such amounts have been shown in the financial statement.Any renewal or acceptance of fresh deposits on or after 1st April, 2014 shall, however, be in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 20 13 and rules made thereunder[12]

·          A depositor is free to file an application under section 73(4) of the said Act, with the Company Law Board if the company fails to make repayment of deposits accepted by it. Further the company may also file application under section 74(2) of the said Act with the Company Law Board seeking extension of time in making the repayment of deposits accepted by it before the commencement of the provisions of the said Act. Also there is no bar on the Registrar of Companies for filing of prosecution against a company if such company fails to make repayment of deposits accepted by it under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or Companies Act, 2013.[13]

SAVITHA G ARUN

---

[1] Rule 2 (c) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

[2] Rule 7 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

[3] Rule 13 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

[4] Section 73 (5) of Companies Act 2013

[5] Rule 5 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

[6] Rule 6 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

[7] Proviso to section 73

[8] NCLT is yet to be constituted

[9] Section 73 (4) of Companies Act 2013

[10] Section 76(1)

[11] Section 76(2) and Rule 19 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

[12] General Ctrcular No. O5/2O15 dated 30.03.2015

[13] General Ctrcular No. O9/2O15 dated 18.06.2015