Suchergebnisse

In October 2013, MOF and ACRA sought further public consultation ("Second Consultation") on the second part of the Draft Companies (Amendment) Bill 2013 that covers legislative amendments relating to foreign companies and other aspects of the Companies Act, including those relating to enhancing the powers of the Registrar of Companies to strike off companies and to share buyback limits. This note discusses some of the more controversial, as well as the significant, changes that are proposed in the Second Consultation.

The concept of a corporation was familiar to the first settlers in Canada, both French and English. The Company of New France and the Hudson's Bay Company are examples of the importance of trading companies in our early economic development. Moreover, colonial legislatures incorporated several dozen companies by special acts before deciding to allow companies to come into being without each one having to go directly to Parliament for its own charter. But a companies act which would permit companies to be expeditiously incorporated for manufacturing, trading, mining, and other ordinary kinds of business was not evolved without some experimentation, a good deal of borrowing from other jurisdictions, and the creation of two rather special methods of our own.Until about 1850, the principle of limited liability was not generally accepted either in Canada, Britain, or most of the United States. Even as late as 1862 Nova Scotia's "Act for the incorporation and winding-up of Joint Stock Companies" (25 Vict. c. 2) forbade the incorporation of companies for "ordinary, mercantile and commercial business." Legislators were afraid that a company might purchase excessive amounts of merchandise on credit and so take unfair advantage of its creditors, as individual traders often did during the nineteenth century.Limited liability was permitted for banks, but only on certain conditions. In Canada, bank shareholders were usually liable for twice the par value of their stock and bank charters were valid for only ten years, so that periodically the government could review and perhaps amend the pertinent statutes.

Any law in force in a country indicates its social, economic and political position. Law is considered to be the measure by which a country's progress is taken into account. India has adopted Companies Act, 2013 in place of the Companies Act, 1956 considering the changing needs of the society and to facilitate the ease of business. In this paper, an attempt is made to bring out the comparative picture of Companies Act 2013. This paper throws some light on the framework of companies Act 2013 and the rapid challenges faced by country and also to understand the basic concepts of companies act 2013 and its application.

<div><p><em>Any law in force in a country indicates its social, economic and political position. Law is considered to be the measure by which a country's progress is taken into account. India has adopted Companies Act, 2013 in place of the Companies Act, 1956 considering the changing needs of the society and to facilitate the ease of business. The Companies Act of the Republic of Maldives 1996 governs the formation, registration and management of companies in the Republic of Maldives. In this paper, an attempt is made to bring out the comparative picture of India and Maldives with regard to Indian Companies Act, 2013 and The Companies Act of the Republic of Maldives 1996 respectively. This paper throws some light on the framework of The Companies Act of the Republic of Maldives 1996 and Indian companies Act 2013 and the rapid challenges faced by both the countries and also to understand the basic difference in various concepts and application of the act in both the countries. The finding of the study shows that India has got verge in terms of adoption of Corporate Laws and Corporate Governance compliances and also has wider provisions than the Maldives Companies Act, 1996.</em></p></div>

It is self-evident that the existence of ten jurisdictions, each having the right to make its own laws for the incorporation and regulation of limited liability companies and each exercising that right, must not only complicate matters greatly for the individual investor, shareholder, or creditor but must also operate as a serious drag on the commercial and industrial development of the nation. One way out of the impasse in which Canada finds herself would be to secure an amendment to her constitution whereby the federal legislature would be given exclusive jurisdiction over companies, and the provinces would surrender their exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights so far as was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the federal control over corporations. This solution is ideal rather than practical, for it assumes self-negation on the part of politicians and comprehension on the part of the electorates greatly exceeding any yet evinced.An alternative, but distinctly inferior, solution would leave the jurisdiction divided as it is at present but induce all ten legislatures to agree upon uniformity in the essential features of their company laws. This plan would do nothing to remove the handicap under which the federal legislature labours by reason of its lack of jurisdiction in the law of contract, but it has been talked about and is regarded by the mass of people as a practical step—notwithstanding the abortive results of the two Dominion-Provincial Conferences already held on the subject.