Listing Agreement Companies Act 2013

The 2013 Act: The 2013 Act took up many provisions of Article 49 of the Rating Agreement and defined the term “independent director” u/s 2 (47), which states that “independent director” refers to an independent director within the meaning of Section 149 within the meaning of Section 149. The new act, as well as the definition of IDs, also includes the criteria for appointment, qualification, duration, remuneration and liability of IDs. CA 1956 did not contain provisions specifying the duties of directors. CA 2013 defined the following missions of directors: The 2013 law sought to balance the broad nature of the obligations, functions and obligations imposed on an identity card. The 2013 law limits and limits the liability of ISDs to issues directly related to them. Section 149 (12) limits the liability of an identity document “only for the omission or commission commissions of a company that have intervened with its knowledge that is or has not acted diligently through the procedure of the board of directors and by its consent or consent.” In India, the seriousness of independent directors (called “identifiers”) has been recognized by the introduction of corporate governance. The Companies Act, 1956 (called “Law, 1956”) does not speak directly of ID, as there is no such provision for mandatory designation of IDs to the Board of Directors. However, Section 492 of the listing agreement, which applies to all listed companies, provides for the appointment of identifiers to the Board of Directors. The need to update the law and its overall compliance and importance in the context of investor protection and client interest was felt. The company`s law, 2013 prohibits taking the option of action, but it may receive fees under section 197 of the act. He may also be allowed to receive the costs of attending the board meeting and other commissions related to the meeting and profits, as authorized by the member. In this context, the 2013 Corporations Act imposes the rule. The main reason for the introduction of the listing regulation was the rationalization of all rules applicable to all securities, making it more convenient for companies to follow a set of rules rather than follow two regulations and avoid confusion resulting from the overlapping of two regulations.

The introduction of a new regulatory framework has also improved the advertising process with regard to SEBI, as more and more companies are subject to strict control of the regulatory mechanism and, as a result, the process of companies complying with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) rules has been improved. With the introduction of listing regulations, contractual obligations have been converted into a legal requirement conferring legal recognition on the regulations. (i) CA 2013 imposes detailed qualifications for the appointment of an independent director to a company`s board of directors. Some important qualifications are the most important: for the aforementioned definition of the Companies Act, 2013 is more advanced than the definition prescribed by the rating agreement. The main differences in definition are now being discussed. Related Party Transactions (RPT) Abusive TPPs are one of the main concerns of corporate governance in India. Most abusive RPTs are carried out between the companies of the group. The participation models of these companies focus on controlling shareholders.

Therefore, the requirement of the shareholders` agreement for such a transaction is of no use, since the majority of voting rights are held by the controlling shareholders.