TRANSFORMATIVE EVOLUTION: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE COMPANIES ACTS JOURNEY IN INDIA OVER THE LAST DECADE BY - CS SIMRANJEET KAUR
TRANSFORMATIVE
EVOLUTION: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE COMPANIES ACT’S JOURNEY IN INDIA OVER THE LAST
DECADE
AUTHORED BY - CS SIMRANJEET KAUR
Assistant Professor, Amity
University, Mohali,
Research Scholar at Rajiv Gandhi
National University of Law, Patiala
Abstract:
This article provides an
in-depth examination of the journey of the Companies Act over the past decade.
It meticulously traces its evolution, reforms, and influence on corporate
governance, regulatory framework, and facilitation of business activities.
Beginning with its inception, it delves into various amendments and initiatives
that are aimed at modernizing corporate laws and promoting transparency and
accountability. Through a comprehensive exploration of key milestones and
reforms, the article evaluates the Act's role in fostering stakeholder’s
confidence, addressing regulatory challenges. Additionally, it discusses ongoing and persistent challenges such as implementation hurdles and
enforcement issues, while proposing future directions for enhancing of
corporate governance, regulatory framework and overall business environment in
India.
Introduction: -
The Companies Act
(hereinafter referred to as CA) in India has experienced significant changes
and reform over the past decade, reflecting the country's commitment towards
fostering a robust and strong corporate governance framework, advancing transparency
and accountability, and thus facilitating and promoting and facilitating ease
of doing business. The passing of the CA, 2013, marked a turning point in
Indian corporate law, introducing a period of modernization and regulatory restructuring.
Subsequently, the CA has been subject to various amendments, revisions, and
initiatives intended to tackle emerging obstacles, streamlining processes, and
aligning with global standards.
1.
Companies Act 2013: A Paradigm Transformation: The CA, 1956 was in
existence for more than fifty years and it failed to address the issues of all
stakeholders. Hence on the basis of the
reports of various expert committees and after a decade long deliberation, the
said Act was replaced or substituted by the CA, 2013.[1]
Considering the significance of Corporate Governance and keeping in mind or
taking into consideration the interest of investors in India, the CA, 2013
raised the bar, thereby elevating the standards on Corporate Governance through
enhanced accountability and transparency on part of corporate and
professionals. In addition to CA, 2013, the listed companies are mandated to
adhere with the guidelines of Security and Exchange Board of India (Listing
Obligation and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred
to as SEBI (LODR)).
Corporate Governance
Reforms: The word Governance has been taken
from the word ‘gubernate’ which means ‘to steer’; and the word ‘corporate’ is
derived from Latin term ‘corpus’
which means a ‘body’.[2]
Corporate Governance means to steer an organisation in the desired direction
and this responsibility is exercised by the board of directors.[3]
According to Institute of
Company Secretaries of India, “Corporate Governance is application of best
management practices, adherence of law in true spirit and discharge of social
responsibility for sustainable development of all stakeholders.”[4]
The CA has come up with
strict provisions on the concept of corporate governance, Independent
Directors, audit committees, and mandatory corporate social responsibility
spending for certain companies. Such provisions are aimed to enhance
effectiveness of boards, mitigate conflict of interest and foster responsible
business practices.
A. Independent Directors: Presence of Independent
Directors on board is one of the greatest contributors to board effectiveness
which ultimately leads to good corporate governance.
Section 149(4) of CA, 2013 provides that at least one third
of the total number of directors shall be independent director[5] and
the Central Government may prescribe the
minimum number of independent
Directors in case of any class or classes of public companies..[6]
According to
Regulation 17 of SEBI (LODR), 2015, board of directors shall have optimum
combination of executive and non-executive directors with at least one women
director and not less than fifty percent of the board of directors shall
comprise of non-executive directors.[7]
Provided that the Board of directors of the top 500 listed entities
shall have at least
one independent woman
director by April
1, 2019 and
the Board of directors of
the top 1000
listed entities shall have
at least one
independent woman director by
April 1, 2020.[8]
Where Chairman
is non-executive director than one-third of board shall be independent Director
and where chairman is executive at least half shall be independent director and
where chairman a promoter or related to a promoter than half of the board shall
consist of independent director.[9]
B. Audit Committee: Section 177 of CA, 2013 provides
that the Board of listed company shall constitute an audit committee which
shall consist of minimum three directors with independent directors forming the
majority. It is also provided that the majority of the members of Audit
Committee including the Chairman should be persons with the ability to read and
understand the financial statements.
According to
Regulation 18 of SEBI (LODR), 2015 every listed company shall constitute an
audit committee which shall consist of minimum three directors, two- third
being independent directors and all members shall be financially literate and
at least one should be accounting or financial management expertise.
At least two thirds
of the members of audit committee shall be independent
directors and in case of a listed entity having outstanding SR equity shares, the
audit
committee shall only comprise of independent directors.[10]
If we look at
the composition of the Audit Committee it can be said that there should be
members who are literate and financial literacy means who can understand
financial statements, thus the above requirements can only be achieved if
Nomination and Remuneration committee is vigilant enough in choosing the
members of the board and formulates the criteria for board diversity. Thus,
board should include persons who understand financial statements as well along
with other requirements.
C. Corporate Social
Responsibility: According to Section 135 of the CA, 2013 every Company having net worth
of rupees five hundred crore or more or turnover of rupees one thousand or more
or net profit of rupees five crore or more during any financial year, shall
constitute a CSR Committee of the Board. Such Committee shall consist of three
or more directors, out of which at least one director shall be an independent
director. Moreover, the Board report shall disclose the composition of CSR.[11]
It is pertinent to note that as per to rule 5(1) of the CSR Rules, 2014, a
private company which is not required to appoint independent director on Board,
shall have a CSR Committee without an independent director. Moreover, the Board
report shall disclose the composition of the CSR Committee. The main function
of this committee is to recommend the Board the CSR policy which shall indicate
the activities to be undertaken by the company as specified in Schedule VII of
the Act.
2. Enhanced
Disclosure Requirements: The CA, 2013, made it mandatory for the
Companies, financial institutions to comply with disclosure requirements.
A. Disclosure should be
Accurate
& Complete
Disclosure that is made by the companies must be true and should give an
accurate description of the circumstances prevailing in the company. In N. Narayanan v. SEBI[12],
it was held that directors of listed company are duty- bound to disclose true
and fair picture of the financial statements to the public and as well as to
the stock exchange.
In Dale & Carrington Invt. (P)
Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan[13],
it was held that the fiduciary capacity within which a director has to act
includes duty to act on behalf of the company with utmost good faith, utmost
care and skill and due diligence and also in the best interest of the company.
They are under a duty to make full and accurate disclosure regarding all
important matters of company to shareholders. The doctrine of ‘proper purpose’
has been evolved whereby the director is under a duty to issue share for the
proper purpose.
Information disclosed must be sufficient to enable investors to take
informed decisions based on such disclosures. Information that is to be
disclosed must be financial as well as non- financial information
B. Disclosure of Material
Information
Information
that is disclosed should be material to influence the investment decision. The
ignition to the enactment of SEBI (LODR) 2015 was the NDTV case which was
relating to clause 36 of the Listing Agreement. NDTV had failed to disclose
within reasonable time the tax demand for 450 crore and subsequently SEBI had
imposed a fine of Rs. 2 crore. According to clause 36 of the Listing agreement,
the listed companies were mandated to inform stock exchanges of any event which
had a bearing on the performance of the company. Moreover, according to NDTV
tax demand was not a material event since clause 36 did not mandate disclosure
of litigation affecting profitability of the company. In addition to above it
contended that tax demand did not effect the price of shares even when demand
was declared and the word ‘material’ as per SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt
Securities) Regulations, 2008 meant only those changes with actually affect the
investment decisions. But according to SEBI as tax demand was greater than
revenue of the company and in addition to this a loss was reported in its
statements, thus information was held to be material. Soon after this, SEBI had
come up with the discussion paper to clarify terms like ‘materiality’ and
‘price sensitive information’. It is pertinent to note that because of the NDTV
case and the discussion paper that SEBI regulation had come up.
The SEBI (LODR)
Regulations, 2015 have enhanced the disclosure obligations to be complied by
the listed entities. The disclosures can be divided into three mandates.
First, mandatory
disclosures of decisions relating to buy- back of shares, voluntary delisting
of company, cash bonuses, financial results of the company, reissue of
forfeited shares, dividends, issue of bonus shares and capital alteration are
to be considered material events. Moreover, the decisions relating to above
material events have to be made within thirty minutes of the meeting in which
such decision was taken.[14]
Secondly, Mandatory
disclosure of fraud, if the fraud has been committed by the promoter or key
managerial personnel or by the listed entity or arrest of key managerial
personnel or arrest of promoter, then at the time of unearthing of fraud or
occurrence of the default or arrest the following has to be disclosed: -
Ø
The nature of fraud or default or arrest;
Ø
Estimated impact on the listed entity;
Ø
Time of occurrence of such fraud/ default/ arrest;
Ø
Persons(s) involved in such fraud/ default/ arrest;
Ø
Estimated amount involved in such fraud/ default/ arrest;
Ø
Whether such fraud/ default/ arrest have been reported to
appropriate authorities. Subsequent intimation to the stock exchange regarding
such fraud/ default/ arrest along with complete details including actual amount
involved, actual impact and corrective measures taken by the listed entity on
account of such fraud/ default.[15]
Thirdly, Regulation 30
along with Schedule III provides events which are deemed material i.e. these
events have to be disclosed without applying the test of materiality. The
events are specified in Part A of Pat A of Schedule III. These events inter alia include acquisitions
including agreement to acquire or scheme of arrangement, Issuance of
securities, split or consolidation of shares, buyback of securities, any
restriction on transferability of securities, revision of ratings, outcome of
the board meetings have to be disclosed, change in designation of directors,
appointment and discontinuation of share transfer agent.[16]
A. Disclosure should be easily Accessible
Information
that is disclosed shall be made available to the investors easily and at a very
low cost. The information can be uploaded on website so that investors can easily
access such information as and when they require and take informed decisions
based on such information. Moreover, every listed company or a company having
not less than one hundred shareholders, debenture holders and other security
holders, may maintain its records in electronic form and such records can be
inspected by the investors. In addition to above any document that has been
registered or filed with the Registrar electronically is also easily accessible
or can be inspected by the investor on payment of prescribed inspection fees
which is Rs. 100 per company per inspection.[17]
B. Disclosure by Internal Auditor, Statutory Auditor and Secretarial Auditor
The concept of internal audit was not provided in the earlier Companies
Act, 1956 but Companies in terms of Companies (Auditors Report) Order, 2003
followed Internal Audit system. Certain types of Companies under CA, 2013 are
required to have internal audit for the better management of risk, control and
governance process. The main or the primary role from an internal audit is to
provide an independent and continuous assurance of the functioning of the
company, bringing in light the key risk areas and advising possible ways to
improve control and efficiency.
Statutory
Auditor is responsible for providing true and fair view of the financial
position of the Company. To strengthen the Corporate Governance norms, the Companies
Act, 2013 prohibits auditors from rendering non- audit services to the client
company. For the first time the Companies Act, 2013 casts onerous
responsibility on the Auditor to report to the Central Government any fraud or
offence observed by him during the audit of the Company. This provision helps
to strengthen the norms of Corporate Governance via external expert like
statutory auditor who would provide an unbiased opinion regarding the status of
the Company.[18]
One of the
most significant reforms in the field of Corporate Governance is the
introduction of Secretarial Audit under the Act. As per Section 204 of the Act
and rules made there under, every public company having paid up capital of Rs.
50 Crore or turnover of Rs. 250 Crore is required to obtain a Secretarial Audit
report from a practicing company secretary. It is the responsibility of the
Secretarial Auditor to provide necessary comfort to the management, regulators
and all stakeholders by providing true and fair view of various statutory compliances,
good governance and the existence of proper and adequate systems and processes
in the Company. As per the Companies Act, 2013, secretarial audit report has to
be annexed to the Board Report of the Company and also to be placed before the
members in their meeting.[19]
Moreover, it the duty of the secretarial auditor to report to the Central
Government any fraud or offence observed by him during the audit of the
Company.
3.
Major Reforms and Amendments
The Companies Act, 2013,
has undergone several amendments and revisions so as to address implementation
challenges, streamline processes, and align with evolving business dynamics.
Some notable reforms and amendments include:
A.
Amendment Acts:
The CA, 2013 has undergone
five major amendments so far. The Companies (Amendment) Act of 2015 and 2017
aimed at enhancing the efficiency and promote ease of doing business. The CA,
2013 was also amended by The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter
referred to as IBC) of 2016 and Finance Act of 2017. The Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 omitted various sections in the Act 2013 like Section 253
to Section 269, Section 289, Section 304 to Section 323 and Section 325. The
Finance Act (hereinafter referred to as FA) 2017 amended Section 182 which
provides for the prohibitions and restrictions regarding political donations.
The most recent amendment was done by the FA 2020 which aimed to ease the
listing of Indian companies in foreign recognized stock exchanges.
v Companies Act, 1956
v Companies Act, 2013
v Companies (Amendment) Act,
2015
v Companies (Amendment) Act,
2017
v Companies (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2018
v Companies (Amendment) Act,
2019
v Companies (Amendment) Act,
2020
B. Highlights of Companies
Act, 2013 as compared to Companies Act, 1956
·
Concept of Woman Director, Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR), Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), Class Action Suits, Entrenchment clause
in Articles of Association are new concepts introduced by the CA, 2013. It also
introduced new types of companies i.e., OPC, Small Company, Associate Company.
New concept of ‘Dormant Company’ has also been introduced in the CA, 2013.
Provision of vigil mechanism has been added by this Act. Term ‘Promoter’ has
been there in the earlier Act, but this Act defined it. The CA, 2013 has also
defined the term ‘Fraud’ in explanation attached to Sec. 447. The CA, 2013 has
undergone amendments in 2015, 2017, 2019 and by Amendment Act, 2020.
C. Significant amendments
made by the Companies Amendment Act, 2020
1.
Decriminalization of offences: The Amendment Act has
decriminalized certain offences under the CA. In case of defaults which lack
any element of fraud or do not involve large public interest, instead of
imprisonment and/or fine, penalty will be imposed under departmental
adjudication proceedings.
2.
Definition of Listed Company: A proviso has been
inserted to Sec. 2(52) of CA, 2013 excluding certain class of companies from
the definition of listed company (mainly for removing companies which are
listed only for debt securities).
3.
Issue of securities of public company for listing in foreign
jurisdictions: Provision has been made to enable public companies to list
their securities in foreign jurisdiction.
4.
Reduction in timeline for rights issue
5.
Insertion of provisions relating to ‘Producer Company in the
2013 Act: Chapter XXIA (containing Secs. 378A to 378ZU) has been inserted
in CA, 2013.
6.
Lesser penalty for start-up company, small company, producer
company, OPC: Lesser monetary penalty will be imposed on a start-up
company, Producer Company, One Person Company, or small company on failure to
comply with provisions of the CA, 2013 which attracts monetary penalties.
D. Amendments made by the
Companies (Amendment) Act, 2019
Ø It added Sec. 10A
requiring the Company having a share capital to make certain declarations;
Ø Reduced the burden of NCLT
by transferring certain approvals, to the Central Government e.g., conversion
of Public Company into Private, changing financial year of a company;
Ø It also
substituted ‘liable to penalty’ in place of ‘fine’ in several
provisions, thereby further easing the mounting work pressure on NCLT. The RoC and
Regional Director (RD) can impose penalties directly after issuing show cause
notice (SCN) in place of going to judiciary for imposing fines under several
provisions.
E. Significant amendments
made by the Companies Amendment Act, 2017
Ø Revision in concept of
KMP: It now includes such other officer, not more than one level below the
directors who is in whole time employment and designated as KMP by the Board
and also such other officers as may be prescribed;
Ø For defining Associate
Company, Holding and Subsidiary Company Relationship words ‘total
share capital’ were substituted by ‘total voting power’;
Ø New section related
to ‘private placement’ was substituted using the term ‘identified
persons’;
Ø Amendment introducing the
concept of ‘Significant Beneficial Owner’ making a declaration to the
company in the manner as prescribed for was one of the important amendments as
it adds to transparency;
Ø The matters which are
required to be transacted by means of ‘Postal Ballot’ may be
transacted by ‘E-voting’, where it is applicable to company;
F. Highlights of Companies
(Amendment) Act, 2015
Some of the
important amendments made by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 are:
•
Common Seal has now become optional.
•
No company is authorized to declare dividend without setting
off losses and depreciation against profits for the current year.
•
Reporting of fraud by the Auditor to Central Government in
case amount exceeds prescribed amount (presently Rs. 1 crore or more). Thus,
the principle of materiality has been introduced by specifying the amount.
Frauds involving lower amounts shall be intimated to Audit Committee, wherever
company is required to have one or the Board of Directors in other cases.
G. Some Major Developments
having a bearing on the Companies Act, 2013
1.
IBC, 2016 (IBC) became operational with effect from
November, 2016. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is the new bankruptcy
law of India which seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a
single law for insolvency and bankruptcy. Secs. 304 to 323 (related to
voluntary winding-up) of the CA, 2013 have been omitted by the IBC, 2016 w.e.f.
15.11.2016.
2.
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and NCLAT have become
operational. The powers which were earlier entrusted to the Company Law Board
or Court in relation to companies are now with NCLT. Appeal against the order
of NCLT can be made to NCLAT.
3.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has been given
Statutory Recognition through Sec.211. SFIO is vested with requisite legal
authority to conduct investigation.
4.
Secretarial Standards (SS) have been statutorily
recognised. The revised SS-1 and SS- 2 became effective from Oct. 1, 2017.
5.
The Finance Act, 2017 amended Sec. 182 related to
Political Contribution and abolished limit on amount of political contribution
by company.
6.
Constitution of National Financial Reporting Authority
(NFRA): Constitution of NFRA has been notified on 1st October,
2018. NFRA has been bestowed with significant powers in issuing authoritative
pronouncements and also in regulating audit profession.
7.
On-line Compliance Monitoring and e-adjudication
launched: Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) launched Compliance Monitoring
System on November 6th, 2019. It works on artificial intelligence. It
automatically detects the non-compliance by company and digitally sends Show
Cause Notice to the defaulter company. The defaulting company is required to
submit its reply within 15 days digitally via MCA CMS portal (https://mcacms.gov.in/#/). In case of non-reply, the
Registrar of Companies would initiate the penal action against the
company/director as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice.
8.
Test for Independent Directors: According to Companies
(Creation and Maintenance of data bank of Independent Directors) Rules, 2019,
independent directors must qualify online proficiency self-assessment test
conducted by the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), Manesar. The new
rules are effective from December 1st, 2019.
9.
Amendments in Schedule VII: Schedule VII prescribing
list of activities on which money can be spent by the companies to which Sec.
135 relating to CSR is applicable has been amended. By notification dated
26/05/2020 in item (VIII) of Schedule VII of the CA, 2013 after the words
“Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” the words “Prime Minister’s Citizen
Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situation Fund” (PM CARES FUND) have been inserted.
10. Measures taken in the
light of COVID-19 and resultant lockdown: Due to COVID-19 and resultant
lockdown, compliance timeline has been extended and certain exemptions also
given. Conduct of Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Extraordinary General
Meeting (EGM) through Video Conferencing and Other Audio-Visual Means (OAVMs)
is also allowed. It needs to be noted that these are temporary measures to deal
with problems created by pandemic.
H. Effect on Ease of Doing Business
The reforms that have been
introduced under the CA, 2013, and the various subsequent amendments as
discussed above have had a significant effect on the ease of doing business in
India. Some key areas of impact include:
1.
Simplified Regulatory Adherence/ Compliance: The CA, 2013, has
actually rationalized and simplified the various regulatory procedures for
businesses, reducing the burden associated with compliance. By streamlining various
processes for example company registration, filing of annual returns, and
conducting board meetings, the Act facilitated smoother regulatory operations
for small and medium enterprises.
2.
Promoting Investor Confidence: The enhanced and strict CG norms
and transparency measures that were introduced under the CA, 2013, have increased
investor confidence in the Indian market. Improved mandatory disclosure
requirements, stricter oversight mechanisms specially by Independent Directors,
and greater accountability have contributed to a more conducive investment
environment, attracting various stakeholders
3.
Starting Startups and Entrepreneurship: The introduction of some
new concepts such as the One Person Company (OPC) and very asimplified
incorporation procedures have actually facilitated entrepreneurship and startup
formation in India. These initiatives, coupled with digital platforms and
initiatives, have reduced barriers to entry for aspiring entrepreneurs,
encouraging innovation and economic growth.
I.
Challenges and Future Direction:
Despites the significant
steps and progress made in reforming the CA, 2013 and enhancing the business
environment in India, several challenges persist. These include:
Implementation Challenges: The effective
implementation of the CA, 2013, and associated reforms remains a challenge due
to capacity constraints, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and the urgent need for
continuous monitoring and enforcement.
Regulatory Compliance
Burden:
While efforts have been made to simplify regulatory procedures, businesses,
particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), still face compliance
challenges due to the complexity and volume of regulatory requirements. Further
simplification and rationalization of regulations are needed to alleviate this
burden.
Enforcement and Corporate
Governance Culture: Despite the introduction of stringent corporate governance
provisions, enforcement remains a challenge, with instances of corporate
misconduct and fraud continuing to undermine investor confidence. Strengthening
enforcement mechanisms and fostering a environment of compliance and ethical
and moral business conduct are essential
for sustaining investor trust.
J. Suggestions:
Strengthening Corporate
Governance:
Enhancing corporate governance standards, promoting board diversity, and
fostering a culture of accountability and transparency across all levels of the
corporate hierarchy
Continued Digitalization: Embracing digital
technologies and platforms to further streamline regulatory processes, enhance
transparency, and improve access to regulatory services for businesses and
stakeholders
Promoting Ease of Doing
Business:
Further simplifying regulatory procedures, reducing compliance burdens, and
fostering a more conducive business environment to attract investment, promote
entrepreneurship, and spur economic growth
In Conclusion, the journey of the CA,
2013 over the past decade reflects the country’ commitment to a modern and
stakeholder friendly environment. while significant progress have been made,
continued reforms, innovation between various stakeholders like government,
regulators, businesses will be essential to sustain momentum and realize India’s
full potential as a global destination.
[1] D.S Mahajani, Monica
Ahir, “Corporate Governance: From shareholders activism to class action”, Chartered Secretary, Vol. 46, No. 04,
April 2016, pp. 29
[2] The Institute of
Company Secretaries of India, Professional
Programme - Ethic, Governance and Sustainabilit, available at, https://www.icsi.edu/WebModules/PP-EGAS-2016%20-%20Full%20Book%20(2)%2002feb2016.pdf
[3] The Institute of
Company Secretaries of India, Professional
Programme - Ethic, Governance and Sustainabilit, available at, https://www.icsi.edu/WebModules/PP-EGAS-2016%20-%20Full%20Book%20(2)%2002feb2016.pdf
[4] Supra 17
[5] Jerry Goodstein, Kanak Gautam and Warren
Boeker, “The Effects of Board Size and Diversity on Strategic Change”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15,
No. 3, March 1994, pp. 241- 250, at pp. 242-243, available at, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486969 (last accessed 10 Feb, 2018).
[6] Rule 4 of Companies
(Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014
[7] Regulation 17, SEBI (Listing Obligation and Disclosure
Requirement) Regulations, 2015.
[8] Regulation 17, SEBI (Listing Obligation and Disclosure
Requirement) Regulations, 2015.
[9] Rule 4 of Companies
(Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014
[10] Regulation 18, SEBI (Listing Obligation and Disclosure
Requirement) Regulations, 2015.
[11] Sec. 135, The Companies Act, 2013.
[12] N. Narayanan v. SEBI,
2013 SCC Online SC 396, available at, http://www.scconline.com/ DocumentLink/xyu0H01g
[13]Dale
& Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. v. P.K
Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212, available at, http://www.scc
online. com/ DocumentLink/n20Kq1BH
[14] Dhruva Sareen, Shreya Mathur,
“SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosures Requirements) Regulations, 2015- An
Critique”, [2015] 129 CLA (Mag.) 74,
available at, http://www.claonline.in/UserAdmin/DisplayArticle.aspx?ID=MjMwNg== (last accessed 15 Feb, 2018).
[15] Tanushree Dave, “Regulation 30 of
LODR Regulations, 2015: Continuous Disclosure Requirements for Listed
Entities”, Chartered Secretary, Vol.
46, No. 10, October, 2016, pp. 1-160, at p.71.
[16] SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations,
2015, Reg. 30
[17] Benjamin Fung, “The Demand and
Need for Transparency and Disclosure in Corporate Governance”, Universal Journal of Management,
available at, http://www.hrpub.Org /download/20140105/UJM3-12101630.pdf (last accessed 16
Jan, 2018).
[18]
D.S Mahajani, Monica Ahir, “ Corporate Governance: From shareholders
activism to class action?” Chartered
Secretary, Vol.46, No. 04, pp. 1-148, at p. 30
[19] Ibid