CS News - May 2017 - J Sundharesan News_May 2017.pdf · Asset management companies as referred to in the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ... credence that Soft-Bank

J Sundharesan & Associates

Governance & Compliance Advisors

63/1, Makam Plaza, 3rd Floor, West Wing, 3rd Main Road,

18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru - 560055 Phone: +91- 80 – 2344 0238/ 39, Cell: +919880026296

www.jsundharesan.com

2017 – “The year of Transparency”. Substance or Form

Initiative by J Sundharesan

CS NEWS C o n n e c t i n g

S t a t u t e s

2017

J SUNDHARESAN & ASSOCIATES CS NEWS – MAY 2017

“Governance is Structural; not social”

2

CS NEWS – INSIDE THIS EDITION

Topics Page No.

Form STK-2 – Ease of Closing Business in India 3-4

Heads Up on events that led to Heads Turn in April 2017 5-10

Corporate Development Judicial – � Aditya Automobile Spares Pt. Ltd. & ORS v. Kotak

Mahindra bank Ltd [CCI]

11-13

From the Government –

� Special courts purpose of speedy trial of offences

14

Save our Earth –

� Shoes made out of Ocean Trash

15

Updates –

� RBI Updates

� Labour Law updates

16

16-17 [[

BOARD ANATOMY – book authored by J. Sundharesan is now available at amazon.in



3

FORM STK-2 – EASE OF CLOSING BUSINESS IN INDIA

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has recently announced an e-form to assist in the

removal of the name of the company (i.e. winding up of a company) from the database available

with the Registrar of Companies (herein after referred to as “RoC”).

Commencing April 5, 2017, e-form STK-2 is made available for companies to file the application

to the RoC for removing its name from register of companies.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 248 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with rule 4, 5, 6

and 8 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies)

Rules, 2016 any Company may make an application for the removal of the name of the

Company from the register of companies in e-form STK-2.

The fees prescribed to file the e-form is Rupees Five Thousand only (Rs. 5,000/- US $ 75).

Once the Company makes an application in e-form STK-2, the Registrar has the duty to satisfy

himself/herself that sufficient provision has been made for the realisation of all amount due to

the company and for the payment or discharge of its liabilities and obligations by the company

within a reasonable time.

THE APPLICATION IN e-FORM STK-2 ALONGWITH THESE ENCLOSURES ARE

REQUIRED TO BE FILED (can change at the discretion of regulators):

1. Indemnity bond duly notarized by every director in e-form STK-3.

2. A statement of accounts containing assets and liabilities of the company made up to a

day, not more than thirty days before the date of application and certified by a Chartered

Accountant.

3. An affidavit in e-form STK-4 by every director of the company.

4. A copy of the special resolution duly certified by each of the directors of the company or

consent of 75% of the members of the company in terms of paid up share capital as on

the date of application.

5. A statement regarding pending litigations, if any, involving the company.

If you think it is so simple, please read on for additional documents that you may require

to close down the company….



4

EVERY APPLICATION ATTACHED WITH e-FORM STK-2 SHALL ACCOMPANY A NO

OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM APPROPRIATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

CONCERNED IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING COMPANIES:

1. Companies which have conducted or conducting non-banking financial and investment

activities as referred to in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) or rules and

regulations thereunder.

2. Housing finance companies as referred to in the Housing Finance Companies (National

Housing Bank) Directions, 2010 issued under the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53

of 1987.

3. Insurance companies as referred to in the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) or rules and

regulations thereunder.

4. Companies in the business of capital market intermediaries as referred to in the

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992) or rules and regulations

thereunder.

5. Companies engaged in collective investment schemes as referred to in the Securities

and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992) or rules and regulations thereunder

6. Asset management companies as referred to in the Securities and Exchange Board of

India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992) or rules and regulations thereunder.

7. Any other company which is regulated under any other law for the time being in force.

CERTIFICATION OF FORM:

The e-Form STK-2 should be certified digitally by a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant or

Company Secretary all these professionals shall be in whole-time practice.



5

HEADS UP ON EVENTS THAT LED TO HEADS TURN IN APRIL 2017

SoftBank opts out of Jasper funding deal

Japanese investor SoftBank has abruptly rescinded a $150-200 million debt financing it had

offered to Snapdeal-owner Jasper Infotech, escalating a boardroom battle involving the online

marketplace’s new and old investors, according to multiple people aware of the

developments. Lines are being drawn across the seven-member board, with Soft-Bank, the

largest stakeholder in Snapdeal, squaring off against two of Snapdeal’s early backers — Kalaari

Capital and Nexus Venture Partners. “Both Kalaari Capital and Nexus Venture Partners are livid

at the developments, and have questioned SoftBank about its intention with regard to

Snapdeal,” one of the people cited above said. “There was a term-sheet offering Snapdeal debt

financing for a period of three years, which was, inexplicably, withdrawn within days, giving

credence that Soft-Bank has made up its mind about selling the company,” a second person

said. Apart from SoftBank, which has two seats at the table, and Kalaari and Nexus, which have

one each, Jasper’s board includes cofounders Kunal Bahl and Rohit Bansal, and Bharti

Enterprises vice-chairman Akhil Gupta as an independent director. The latest sequence of

events took place barely three weeks ago. SoftBank declined to comment on the developments,

while Jasper Infotech, Nexus Venture Partners and Kalaari Capital did not reply to emails from

ET. According to the people cited above, SoftBank has led all discussions relating to a potential

sale or merger involving Snapdeal, with no other stakeholder involved. “SoftBank has been

solely fronting all the (sale) conversations till date.

The other board members have been pretty much kept out of the loop thus far,” one of the

people cited above said. The rising differences between Jasper’s largest stakeholder, which has

pumped in about $900 million in the company, and its early investors were first reported by Mint

in its March 31edition. NOT THE FIRST INSTANCE This is not the first time that Jasper’s board

members, particularly SoftBank, Kalaari Capital and Nexus Venture Partners, have crossed

swords. In December, SoftBank had offered a direct $50-million monthly injection in Snapdeal,

contingent on a potential merger or sale of the company. Kalaari and Nexus Venture Partners

disagreed with the terms, asking the Tokyo-headquartered investor to instead guarantee the

funding. That offer was also taken off the table. SoftBank’s stake in Jasper stood at about 33%

while Kalaari Capital and Nexus Venture Partners owned about 8% and 10%, respectively. Both

the founders, combined, owned about 6.5% of the company, which at its peak early last year

was valued at about $6.5 billion. Kalaari, which has invested about $27.5 million in Jasper,

earned handsome returns estimated at about $100 million when it sold a portion of its stake to

Soft-Bank in late 2014. Nexus Venture Partners, which has invested $40-50 million in the

company, has not sold any of its stake. A sale of Snapdeal, if successful, would have huge

ramifications on not just the Indian startup ecosystem but also on the country’s consumer

internet sector. Snapdeal, which along with Flipkart, has played a critical role in shaping the

ecosystem, is still regarded as the third-largest ecommerce company in the country in spite of

dwindling sales. SoftBank has reached out to Flipkart to sell Snapdeal.



6

The potential contours of that deal could see SoftBank pick up a 20% stake in the country’s

largest commerce company for about $1.5 billion, in the process buying out $1 billion worth of

Tiger Global’s holding in Flipkart, according to two people aware of the matter. Governance

rights for Soft-Bank have also been discussed as part of the deal, one of them said. Flipkart did

not reply to email queries on a potential acquisition of Snapdeal.

Infosys CEO Vishal Sikka defends COO Pravin Rao's pay, says move crucial to retain

talent

The public spat between the founders of Infosys and its board of directors is flaring up ahead of

a crucial meeting next week where a series of contentious issues are due to be debated, as

India's second largest software services company battles internal turmoil and global headwinds

that pose a serious challenge to the outsourcing industry. In a detailed rebuttal to the criticism

by founder NR Narayana Murthy on the proposed pay hike for chief operating officer Pravin

Rao, the company said it had reduced his fixed pay while allowing an increase in variable pay

based on performance. "It is essential for us to see that this revision in his compensation, as

with several of our senior leadership team, is focused on making Infosys more competitive, is

benchmarked against peers," said CEO Vishal Sikka in a statement. "(It) is critical for us to

retain key talent and align the long-term interests of our leadership team with that of our

shareholders," he said. The stock allotted to Rao comes with a vesting period of four years. As a

result, the net increase in his compensation for fiscal 2018 will be 1.4% which could go up to

33.4% in the fourth year, assuming similar grants are made in subsequent years, the company

said. The two-day board meeting is scheduled for April 12 and 13. It is expected to announce a

buyback of shares and also deal with demands laid down by the founders, which includes a

review of the remuneration practices as well as induction of new members onto the board of the

Nasdaq-listed company.

On Sunday, in an open letter to reporters, Murthy criticised the pay hike being issued to Rao,

saying the quantum of the pay-hike proposed — nearly 60% to 70% increase — would erode

the trust of the rank-and-file employees. In a statement on Monday, the company said cash

component of Rao's salary, including annual cash bonus, has fallen 10.6% to Rs 4.6 crore from

Rs 5.2 crore earlier while the performance-based component, directly linked to company and

individual performance, has been increased to 63% from 45% of total

compensation. GOVERNANCE ISSUES The latest salvo by Murthy comes at a time when the

company has appointed Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas as a mediator to finalise a corporate

governance framework to take inputs of founders and other stakeholders, including institutional

shareholders. "The discussions were happening, but it was not being revealed in public.



7

One of the things being talked about is how to improve the governance at the remuneration

committee and the possible induction of new board members," said a person with knowledge of

the discussions between the company and its founders. In February, Murthy had slammed

governance at Infosys, saying it was flawed and that the chairman of the board and

remuneration committee needed to take responsibility for the falling standards. Industry

observers are divided in their opinion on the fractious tussle at a company once regarded as the

bellwether for governance standards in the Indian technology industry.

Former Infosys executive V Balakrishnan said the pay hikes should be linked to improvement in

shareholder returns. "The stock has not performed well and you have a variable salary for

senior management where the shareholders do not even know the milestones which they have

to achieve to get that variable. It is totally under the control of the board," Balakrishnan said. He

reiterated his demand for an overhaul of the board to improve governance. Shares of the

company closed down 1.11% at Rs 1009.45 apiece on Monday on the Bombay Stock

Exchange. The stock has lost about a fifth of its value in the last one year as growth in the

information technology industry slows amid digital disruption and protectionist governments in

the US and UK. DAMAGING VIEWS? Governance experts, however, disagree with Murthy and

said his statements were damaging the company. "I do not see Rao's compensation as a

corporate governance issue. That is because it is not a related party transaction.

Rao is a professional and not a promoter," JN Gupta, managing director at Stakeholders

Empowerment Services, said. Infosys had asked shareholders to vote on Rao's salary, to ratify

the appointment of DN Prahlad as an independent director and to vote for an amendment to its

articles of association that would allow a share repurchase, in a postal ballot which was

published on the BSE website on Sunday. Overall, Rao's salary increase passed with 67% of

votes cast in favour of it. About 33% of the vote cast were against the raise. Over 90% of the

votes cast were in favour of the other resolutions on the ballot. Murthy had earlier questioned

Infosys' former CFO Rajiv Bansal's severance pay. He had also criticised the salary being paid

to CEO Vishal Sikka, which was raised to $11million last year from $7.08 million in

2016. "Infosys has the responsibility to attract and retain top quality talent," the company said in

a statement on Monday, while adding that it has taken careful note of the statements expressed

by the company's promoters.

Google accused of 'extreme' gender pay discrimination

The US Department of Labour (DoL) has accused Google of discriminating its female

employees by paying them less than their male counterparts. According to a report in the

Guardian on Saturday, The DoL, which is investigating the case, claims to have evidence of

"systemic compensation disparities". The allegations surface days after Google announced on

Equal Pay Day that it had "closed the gender pay gap globally". "Let's make every day Equal

PayDay. All employers can take steps to eliminate the gender and race pay gaps, today,"

@Google tweeted earlier this week. The government has collected information that points

towards the violation of federal employment laws by Google, the DoL said.



8

"We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire

workforce," the report quoted Janette Wipper, a DoL regional director, testifying in a San

Francisco court, as saying. The investigation in the case is not complete, but the DoL has said

the government's analysis at this point indicated discrimination against women in Google is

quite extreme. "Every year, we do a comprehensive and robust analysis of pay across genders

and we have found no gender pay gap. Other than making an unfounded statement which we

heard for the first time in court, the DoL hasn't provided any data, or shared its methodology," a

Google spokesperson was quoted as saying.

Vijay Mallya arrested in London, but flight to India some way off

Vijay Mallya, who fled to Britain in March 2016, was arrested “on behalf of Indian authorities” by

British police on Tuesday and received bail from a lower court in London. This is the beginning

of extradition hearings. The next court appearance will be on May 17. Tuesday’s development

marks an initial success for the Narendra Modi government, which has been strongly pushing

for Mallya’s extradition to India, but it also marks the beginning of a likely long and complicated

legal and administrative process. As has been his wont since landing in Britain, Mallya, who

promoted the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, tweeted and criticised Indian media. His tweet

post bail said this was “usual Indian media hype”. India has been pressing its case on

extraditing Mallya, who’s accused of money laundering by Indian investigative agencies and

sought by banks and courts for loan defaults amounting to Rs 9,000 crore. A Delhi court has

issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against Mallya, whose passport was revoked by the

government earlier.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley is learnt to have urged British PM Theresa May on the importance

of extraditing the industrialist whose business once extended from liquor to airlines and cricket

to F1. CBI, ET has learnt, has emphasised Mallya’s alleged money laundering activities in its

extradition request. British and Indian officials met in February this year to discuss India’s

extradition requests, which include Mallya’s case and 15 others. Tuesday’s action, Indian

officials said, demonstrated that British authorities have taken on board Indian government’s

arguments on Mallya. Notably, another Indian extradition request, on Rajesh Kapur, an Indian

citizen accused of child abduction and financial fraud, may soon be successful. Mallya’s arrest

is therefore being seen as a good augury by officials in CBI and ED. But, officials here

explained, India’s extradition request will have to negotiate several legal and procedurals

hurdles. The judge hearing the extradition case must be satisfied that Mallya’s alleged offences

in India would have been offences of equal gravity in Britian, that there are no statutory bars

against extraditing the former chief of UB, and that no human rights violation will occur. This

process may take six months, lawyers familiar with UK extradition process said. If the judge is

satisfied there’s a case for extradition, the decision rests with the British home secretary

(equivalent of India’s home minister). But Mallya can challenge the judge’s ruling in British high

court and then the Supreme Court, and he can also submit a representation to the British home

secretary. Altogether, the process can go on for months, lawyers said.



9

2.5 lakh companies sans business activity stare at closure

About a quarter million companies in India face the possibility of being dissolved for not carrying

out any business over the last two financial years and failing to apply for 'dormant' status. In

public notices issued over the last two weeks, the regional offices of the Registrar of Companies

(RoC) have named about 250,000 such entities across the country which failed to apply for

'dormant company' status under the Companies Act, 2013. Information from the RoCs pegs the

number of such companies in Mumbai at over 71,000, 53,000 in Delhi, 40,000 in Hyderabad

and 22,000 in Bengaluru. As per norms, the names of these companies will be struck off and

the entities dissolved in the absence of any objection, an official said. The notices, available on

the website of the ministry of corporate affairs, were issued under the Companies (Removal of

Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Amendment Rules, 2016, which was

notified by the corporate affairs ministry on December 26, 2016. Looking at the numbers, next

are the cities of Ahmedabad, Kolkata and Pune with 11,000-12,000 companies. RoC Chennai

names only 4,000 companies in the notice, while those in Kanpur, Jaipur and Chandigarh

naming 7,000, 6,000 and 4,600 companies, respectively. The rules also state that the Registrar

of Companies shall, ‘simultaneously intimate the concerned regulatory authorities regulating the

company, viz, the income-tax authorities, central excise authorities and service-tax authorities’

to seek any objections before deregistering the companies. Section 248 of the Companies Act,

2013, empowers the RoC to remove the name of a company in two cases — if it fails to start

business within a year of incorporation, and if a ‘non-dormant’ company does not do business

for two successive financial years. The least number of companies were named by RoC

Puducherry at 82 and RoC Gwalior at 137. Section 455 of the Act provides for an inactive

company to apply for ‘dormant’ status in cases where a company is formed and registered ‘for a

future project or to hold an asset or intellectual property and has no significant accounting

transaction’. Data with respect to number of companies that have acted upon being identified in

these notices is still unavailable.

Stayzilla CEO Vasupal gets bail

The Madras High Court today granted bail to start-up firm Stayzilla CEO Yogendra Vasupal

nearly a month after he was arrested on charges of cheating. Justice S Bhaskaran granted bail

to Vasaupal on a personal bond Rs 40 lakh. The Stayzilla CEO was arrested on March 14 on a

complaint by city-based advertisement firm that it had been defrauded by the online home stay

aggregator Stayzilla to the tune of Rs 1.69 crore. When the complainant firm Jigsaw Advertising

and Solutions sought a direction for a mediated settlement to the issue, the judge said it was a

clear case of business transaction between two entrepreneurs. He said it was for the parties to

work out such a remedy. Earlier Vasupal’s bail plea had been turned down twice, first by the

special CB-CID court on March 23 and then by the principal sessions court here on March 28.

The Central Crime Branch sleuths had arrested Vasupal on a complaint from C S Aditya of

Jigsaw Advertising and Solutions and booked him on charges of criminal breach of trust,



10

intimidation and cheating. It was alleged that Vasupal and his partner Sarjit Singhi had criminally

intimidated the complainant when he demanded refund of the dues.

Setback for Cyrus Mistry as NCLT rejects waiver petition

In a setback to the Cyrus Mistry camp, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has rejected

a waiver petition filed by the ousted Tata Sons’ chairman. The tribunal also dismissed the main

petition, which it heard last on April 4. The Mistry camp now has the option to move the National

Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and then the Supreme Court; it declined to divulge

its plan of action. The Mistry camp had sought a waiver on the condition in the Companies Act

that a firm or person should hold a minimum 10 per cent share to file a petition before the NCLT.

The waiver was sought after Tata Sons alleged the Mistry camp had no locus standi to move

the NCLT, as the Shapoorji Pallonji group owns only 2.17 per cent of the Tata Sons share

capital. The Mistry camp sought the waiver and asked the NCLT to use its discretion.

Main plea also dismissed

The NCLT also dismissed the main plea – the maintainability petition — which cited governance

lapses and compromise of minority shareholder interests, after Mistry was ousted as Tata Sons

Chairman. On December 20, Mistry had moved the NCLT asking it to protect Tata Sons from

“oppression and mismanagement of minority interest”. The suits, filed through two of his family

firms, Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investment Corporation, had stated that the Shapoorji

Pallonji group owns 18.37 per cent stake in Tata Sons. In its reply later on January 9, Tata Sons

had sought dismissal of the petition with “exemplary costs” as it did not meet the conditions

under the Companies Act.

Tata Sons welcomes ruling

“We are pleased that Mistry’s claims have been dismissed by NCLT. The order... represents a

vindication of our position. We hope this brings to an end to the vexatious campaign against the

company, the Tata Trusts and Ratan N Tata. Tata Sons will continue its focus on its future

development under the stewardship of our Executive Chairman N Chandrasekaran,” said Tata

Sons Chief Operating Officer FN Subedar. This ruling is the fifth one by the NCLT, rejecting

relief requested by the Shapoorji Pallonji Group companies and Cyrus Mistry, it said. “Mistry has

made many ill-advised and groundless allegations intended to besmirch the name of the Tata

Group,” said Subedar. “Today’s ruling... makes clear that there is no case to be heard. Over the

past six months, Mistry has failed demonstrably to build a case. We trust that NCLT’s decision

brings this matter to a close,” he added.



11

Facts: The Informants belong to Aditya Group. Informant No. 1 is an original equipment

manufacturer (OEM) of Bajaj, Hero Honda and TVS and also an authorised dealer for Kinetic,

LML and Yamaha. Informant No. 2, an authorised stockist of Maruti Udyog Limited, is engaged

in the sale and marketing of Maruti Suzuki’s spare parts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The

Informant No. 3 is engaged in the sale of spare parts of 4-wheeler and light commercial vehicles

and Informant No. 4 is engaged in the sale of lubricant oil.

The Informants are primarily aggrieved by the conduct of the OP in denying enhancement of

various credit limits, reduction in interest rates and delay in the handing over of the documents/

title deeds mortgaged with it back to the Informants for making a switch over to the Syndicate

Bank for availing various banking services/ facilities. The Informants are also aggrieved with the

conduct of the OP in debiting Rs. 32,41,750/- as penal interest in an arbitrary manner without

informing them. The Informants have alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2) (a)

(ii) and 4(2) (c) of the Act in the matter.

Decision: Complaint Rejected

Reason: The Commission observes that the allegations raised in the instant matter relates to

various types of banking services/ facilities viz. cash credit, bank guarantee and term loan

facility availed by the Informants from the OP. It is observed that the allegations in the instant

case do not relate to any specific banking facilities availed by the Informants from the OP, but

rather to a broader spectrum of banking services/ facilities offered by the OP. Thus, the relevant

product market in this case cannot be narrowed down to a specific banking service/ facility such

as term loan, bank guarantee, cash credit etc. Rather, it should be the broader market of

banking services. Further, it is pertinent to note that the impugned banking services are

provided by the OP not only to the Informants but also to different corporate entities for their

business operations. It may be noted that the banking services provided to corporate entities

cannot be considered as a substitute with the banking services available for the retail/ general

customers. Even though the nomenclature of the banking services/ facilities provided to the

CASE LAW Aditya Automobile Spares Pt. Ltd. & ORS v. Kotak Mahindra bank Ltd [CCI]

DECIDED ON March 15, 2017

LEGISLATION Competition Act, 2002-Section 4

BRIEF FACTS

abuse of dominance- banking services- credit facilities- request for reduction

of interest rate refused by OP- takeover of loan by other bank- delay in

handing over title documents by OP- whether abuse of dominance- Held,

No.

Corporate Development Judicial



12

retail/ general customers and corporate entities are same, the characteristics of the banking

services/ facilities differ between the two groups. It may be noted that banks on the basis of

various verticals or indicators like demand requirements, credit worthiness, expected profitability

of the proposed business venture etc. make a clear-cut distinction between corporate customers

and general customers. Even if two entities are operating a similar class of account, say current

account, the facilities offered to such accounts differ from customer to customer. Further, the

accounts used for business purposes/ corporate entities also differ from the accounts used by

normal customers. In view of the above, the relevant product market in the present case may be

considered as the market for the “provision of banking services for corporate entities”.

With regard to the relevant geographic market, the Commission is of the view that the conditions

of competition for availing banking services by the corporate entities throughout India are

homogenous. A corporate entity can avail the banking services/ facilities from any bank

operating anywhere in India. Further, core banking facility enables the bank customers to

operate their accounts from any place in India without any hurdle. Therefore, the Commission is

of the view that the relevant geographic market in this case may be taken as ‘India’.

Based on the above, the Commission defines the relevant market in this case as the market for

the “provision of banking services for corporate entities in India”.

With regard to assessment of the position of dominance of the OP in the relevant market as

defined above, the Commission observes that banking services for corporate entities is a sub

segment of the larger market of banking services. It is observed that the Informants have not

provided any information relating to the allegation of dominance of the OP in the relevant

market. Also, no information is available in the public domain with regard to the position of

dominance of the OP in the market of banking services for corporate entities. However,

Commission deems it appropriate to examine the information available in the public domain to

assess the position of the OP in the larger market of banking services in India and to draw a

conclusion regarding the position of dominance of OP in the relevant market defined above.

The Commission observes that in terms of net-worth value for the year 2015- 16, the OP had a

very small and insignificant market share of nearly 3% in banking services. Further, players like

State Bank of India (with a market share of 15.21% in terms of net-worth value for 2015-16),

Bank of Baroda (with a market share of 3.80% in terms of net-worth value for 2015-16), Punjab

National Bank (with a market share of 3.74% in terms of net-worth value for 2015-16), Bank of

India (with a market share of 2.77% in terms of net-worth value for 2015-16) and others are

providing banking services on a larger scale in comparison to the OP. Also, in terms of total

assets for the financial year 2015-16, the asset portfolio of the OP is much smaller as compared

to State Bank of India (SBI) and other banks.

Furthermore, in terms of net sales, net profit and market capitalisation also the OP is lagging

behind other banks like SBI and Punjab National Bank. In view of the above, the OP does not



13

appear to be dominant in the banking services market, which makes it highly unlikely for it to be

in a dominant position in the market of provision of banking services to corporate entities in

India. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the OP is not in a dominant position in the

relevant market as defined in para 17 above. Since the OP is not in a dominant position in the

relevant market, its conduct need not be examined in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the

Act.

Based on the above analysis, the Commission is of the view that no prima facie case of

contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against the OP in the present

case and the matter is hence, ordered to be closed.



14

Special courts purpose of speedy trail of offences

[Issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide [F. No. 01/12/2009-CL-I (Vol. IV)] dated

23.03.2017. To published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section (3) Sub-section(ii)

vide Notification No. S.O_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(E), dated 23.03.2017]

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 435 of the Companies Act,

2013 (18 of 2013), the Central Government, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh hereby designates the following Courts mentioned in the Table below as Special

Courts for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences punishable with imprisonment

of two years or more under the said Act, namely:-

TABLE

Sl. No.

(1)

Existing Court

(2)

Jurisdiction as Special Court

(3)

1. Special Court for trial of Economic Offences-cum-

VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Court-cum- XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad

State of Telangana

2. Court of IV Additional District Judge-cum- II

Additional Metro politan Sessions Judge,

Visakhapatnam

State of Andhra Pradesh

2. The aforesaid Courts mentioned in column number (2) shall exercise the jurisdiction as

Special Courts in respect of jurisdiction mentioned in column number (3).

From the Government



15

Sports retailer Adidas recently teamed up with a conservation organization called Parley for the

Oceans to put the ocean's overwhelming amount of trash to good use. In a world's first

prototype, the two groups created a shoe whose upper construction was harvested from ocean

plastic and illegal deep-sea gillnets. A Parley ally, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,

collected the materials while on a 110-day expedition to track an outlawed poaching vessel off

the coast of West Africa.

You'd never guess that the stylish shoe was made of ocean refuge, and the collaboration

proves that fashion can come from eco-friendly and sustainable sources. "We are extremely

proud that Adidas is joining us in this mission and is putting its creative force behind this

partnership to show that it is possible to turn ocean plastic into something cool,” Parley founder

Cyrill Gutsch said during a presentation about the project.

While it's uncertain if this shoe will ever be for sale, its creation marks a new beginning for

Adidas. The company will start incorporating recycled plastic into its footwear by early next year.

Source: http://mymodernmet.com/adidas-parley-for-the-oceans-collaboration-on-ocean-refuge-shoe/

SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT

SHOES MADE OUT OF OCEAN TRASH



16

RBI UPDATES

Overseas Direct Investment for March 2017

The Reserve Bank of India has released the data on Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI)

indicating the comparative position for the month of February 2017 and March 2017 and for the

month of March 2016 and March 2017 both under Automatic Route and the Approval Route, for

the month of March 2017.

Scholarship Scheme for Faculty Members from Academic Institutions

The Reserve Bank of India invites application as per prescribed format from full-time faculty

members, teaching economics or finance in any University Grants Commission (UGC) or All

India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) recognized Universities/Colleges in India to

undertake short term research in the areas of monetary and financial economics, banking, real

sector issues and other areas of interest to the Reserve Bank.

LABOUR LAW UPDATES

The Rationalization of Forms and Reports under Certain Labour Laws Rules, 2017

• Maintenance of Forms under certain labour related laws the rules are:

(i) the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970);

(ii) the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act,

1979 (30 of 1979); and

(iii) the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of

Service) Act, 1996 (27 of 1996),

• The Rules may come into force on the date of their publications in the official Gazette.

• The forms are to be maintained under certain labour related laws.

Maternity Benefit Amendment Act, 2017

• Increase in the maternity leave from the existing 12 to 26 weeks for working women with

less than 2 surviving children.

• Provision for work from home for nursing mothers.

• Facility of creche for those establishments where the employees are 50 or more.

UPDATES



17

Amendment in the Schedule to the child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition &

Regulation) Act, 1986

The draft notification further to amend the Schedule to the Child and Adolescent Labour

(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (61 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which

the Central Government proposes to make in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of

the Act, is hereby notified, as required by sub-section (1) of the section 18, giving the notice of

its intention to do so, by like notification, by addition or omission of certain hazardous

occupation or processes in the said Schedule and for information of all persons likely to be

affected thereby and the notice is hereby given that the said draft notification will be taken into

consideration after the expiry of a period of three months from the date on which the copies of

the Official Gazette.

Disclaimer: Views and other contents expressed or provided by the contributors are their own and the firm does not accept

any responsibility. The firm is not in any way responsible for the result of any action taken on the basis of the contents

published in this newsletter. All rights are reserved. For Private circulation, only. © 2017 J Sundharesan

Documents

CS News - May 2017 - J Sundharesan News_May 2017.pdf · Asset management companies as referred to in the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ... credence that Soft-Bank