Shreerang's Opinion:
A former international-level wrestler, suspended from Railways for misconduct and carrying a reward of Rs 20,000 on his head, was arrested for his involvement in a number of criminal cases, including a murder attempt.

Shreerang's Opinion:
The flight data recorders of a plane that went missing over the Atlantic may never be found, French officials say.

Shreerang's Opinion:
A fourth member of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government quit Wednesday in a new blow to his political authority amid widespread outrage over the country's lawmakers' expense scandal.

Shreerang's Opinion:
World number two Roger Federer was back to his brilliant best as he eased past local favourite Gael Monfils to reach French Open semis.

Shreerang's Opinion:
Russian Svetlana Kuznetsova survived a fightback from American world number two Serena Williams to book a French Open semi-final berth.

Shreerang's Opinion:
The Limited Liability Partnership (abbreviated as LLP) has elements of partnerships and corporations. It is a partnership in which all partners are limited partners. In an LLP one partner is not responsible or liable for another partner‘s misconduct or negligence. This is an important difference from that of a limited partnership. In an LLP, all partners have a form of limited liability for each individual‘s protection within the partnership, similar to that of the shareholders of a corporation. However, unlike corporate shareholders, the partners have the right to manage the business directly. As opposed to that, corporate shareholders have to elect a board of directors under the laws of various state charters. The board organizes itself (also under the laws of the various state charters) and hires corporate officers who then have as "corporate" individuals the legal responsibility to manage the corporation in the corporation‘s best interest. An LLP also contains a different level of tax liability than a corporation.

 

Limited liability partnerships are distinct from limited partnerships, in that limited liability is granted to all partners, not to a subset of non-managing "limited partners." As a result the LLP is more suited for businesses where all investors wish to take an active role in management.

 

The Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 has been notified in the official Gazette of India on Januay 9, 2009. ] But the relevant rules have not been notified as yet and are in preparation so the Act has not been fully implemented. The Minister of Corporate Affairs is striving hard to get the first LLP in India be incorporated on 1st April 2009. The Parliament of India has passed the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Bill 2008. Lok Sabha (Lower House) granted its assent to the Bill on December 12, 2008 which was earlier passed by the Rajya Sabha (Upper House). The salient features of the LLP Act, 2008 are as under:-

 

1. The LLP has an alternative corporate business vehicle that would give the benefits of limited liability but allows its members the flexibility of organizing their internal structure as a partnership based on an agreement.

 

2. The LLP Act does not restrict the benefit of LLP structure to certain classes of professionals only and would be available for use by any enterprise which fulfills the requirements of the Act.

 

3. While the LLP has a separate legal entity, liable to the full extent of its assets, the liability of the partners would be limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP. Further, no partner would be liable on account of the independent or un-authorized actions of other partners, thus allowing individual partners to be shielded from joint liability created by another partner’s wrongful business decisions or misconduct.

 

4. LLP shall be a body corporate and a legal entity separate from its partners. It will have perpetual succession. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 shall not be applicable to LLPs and there shall not be any upper limit on number of partners in an LLP unlike an ordinary partnership firm where the maximum number of partners can not exceed 20.

 

5. The taxation of LLPs shall be addressed in the Income Tax Act, 1961 which regulates taxation of all form of entities.

 

6. Provisions have been made for corporate actions like mergers, amalgamations etc.

 

7. While enabling provisions in respect of winding up and dissolutions of LLPs have been made, detailed provisions in this regard would be provided by way of rules under the Act.

 

8. The Act also provides for conversion of existing partnership firm, private limited company and unlisted public company into a LLP.

 

9. Nothing Contained in the Partnership Act 1932 shall effect an LLP.

 

10. The Registrar of Companies (Roc) shall register and control LLPs also.

 

11. The governance of LLPs shall be in electronic mode in the successful model of the present

(Extracted from Ministry of Corporate Affairs Portal)




(c) 2007, Shreerang Ketkar, All rights reserved.

Shreerang's Opinion:
US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S Bernanke today warned that there could be more job losses in the next few months.

Shreerang's Opinion:
Banks will save provisioning of up to 5% of the value of the restructured loans, it estimates

Shreerang's Opinion:
Spanish media downplayed reports that Madrid had signed Kaka, saying it is not yet official and that Chelsea hope to buy the Brazilian.

Shreerang's Opinion:
Two insurgents of United National Liberation Front (UNLF) were killed in an encounter with Assam Rifles personnel in interior Chandel district of Manipur, official sources said on Wednesday.

Shreerang's Opinion:
"The Bill is not acceptable to us in its present form," Yadav told reporters outside Parliament when his opinion was sought on the matter.

Shreerang's Opinion:
Britain is mulling an idea to put a limit on the number of non-EU immigrants to be allowed to settle permanently in the country.

Shreerang's Opinion:
The Offence
The provision of sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments [NI] act can be invoked where, cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or even in case of any other liability; not legally enforceable.
The debt should not have been a time barred debt, as specified under the Indian Limitation Act 1963. a complaint is not tenable if a cheque issued towards repayment of time bared debt gets dishonoured.
The provision u/s 138 can be invoked where cheque was bounced due to non-availability of funds and closure of the Bank account.

Notice
A notice be sent to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days from the date of dishonour of cheque.
Notice should be in writing calling up on the drawer to pay the sum of cheque.
If the notice states an amount greater than the cheque amount proper justification must be mentioned in the notice or else the notice will be treated as defective.
The drawer needs to pay the amount of cheque within 15 days from receiving the abovementioned notice.
Notice be given to all the partners of partnership firm. In case of unregistered firm notice be given to the person who has signed the cheque.
A single notice for dishonour of two or more cheques to the same drawer of cheque is also permitted.
A notice can be issued in the name of the person who has signed the cheque irrespective of his position / authority.
Dishonour of cheque because of incomplete signature of drawer does not not attract sec. 138

Complaint
Criminal complaint should be filed within one month of expiry of 30 days provided to the drawer for payment.
A complaint should be filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate or First Class Judicial magistrate.
Once notice is issued under Sec.138, failure to initiate prosecution would forfeit the right to prosecute.
Once a notice is issued the bounced cheque can not be re-deposited.
Complaint is not maintainable in case the drawer Request not to present the cheque and even after such request the cheque is presented and got dishonoured.

Complainant
With the permission of the court, legal heirs of the payee can continue the case.

Punishment
Imprisonment for the term of 2 years and payment of fine to the extent of twice the amount of the cheque

Personal Liability
A person or a director of a company can be made personally responsible towards bouncing of cheque provided the same is specifically mentioned in the complaint issued vide sec. 138 of the NI Act. Every director is not automatically vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. Merely being a director is not sufficient to make the person liable u/s 141 of the NI Act. Its necessary to provide that the director is on a position and in control of the affairs of the business or he is the signatory of the cheque. The signatory of the cheque is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under u/s 141(2). The complaint must disclose the necessary facts which makes the person liable. Even a person who is not a director can be made liable u/s 141 of the NI act.
Nominee directors are not liable for prosecution.

Accused
On the death of the drawer / accused, his legal heirs are not liable to pay the amount of cheque or fine as the act of dishonour of cheque is of criminal nature and hence the case can not be continued against the legal hairs of the drawer.
Appearance of accused in the court
A director can file an application to dispense with his personal appearance as provided in sec. 205 of the Criminal Procedure code 1973
Exemption from appearing in the court is not granted to the accused at the first instance. While granting an Exemption from personal appearance of an accused a court may demand an Undertaking viz. bail bond.

Compounding
Compounding of the offense is possible u/s 147 of the NI Act.

© Copyright 2009, Shreerang Ketkar, All rights reserved.(c) 2007, Shreerang Ketkar, All rights reserved.

Shreerang's Opinion:
The Samajwadi Party today named party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav‘s son Akhilesh Yadav as its Uttar Pradesh unit president -- apparently taking the cue from the trend set by certain national political parties to entrust greater responsibility to the youth.

Shreerang's Opinion:
World oil prices fall back, with investors growing more cautious as crude approaches the $70-a-barrel mark.

Shreerang's Opinion:
US special envoy for Pak and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, said the release of JuD chief Hafiz Saeed, main accused in the Mumbai attacks, "has disturbed us all".

Shreerang's Opinion:
Clearly relieved after breaking the Q2 jinx in Monaco, Force India drivers are now eyeing an encore in qualifying sessions for the Turkish GP.

Shreerang's Opinion:
Radical Sikhs staged a rally on Wednesday demanding construction of a memorial for those killed inside the Golden Temple complex during the Operation Blue star.

Shreerang's Opinion:
Karan Sharma, who stayed in Australia for two-and-a-half months, claimed he experienced mental trauma and a lot of harassment which forced him to return home in 2007.

Shreerang's Opinion:
The Act has received President’s assent in September 13th 2005.It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Act is an extremely progressive one not only because it recognizes women who are in a live in relationship but also extends protection to other women in the household, including sisters and mothers.

Even a single act of omission or commission may constitute domestic violence. The law covers children also. Preventing one‘s wife from taking up a job or forcing her to leave job are also under the purview of the Act. Violence covers sexual violence like forced intercourse, sexual, verbal and economic violence Forcing a woman to look at pornography or any obscene pictures, any act of sexual nature to abuse, humiliate or degrade a woman‘s integrity.

Her ‘tormentor‘ would be ordered not to attempt to communicate with her, including at her workplace. Apart from this, the woman can rightfully continue to live under the same roof with the man while fighting him in the court. It also provides a woman a right to reside in the matrimonial and shared household, whether or not she has any title in the household. She also has the right to simultaneously file her own complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

All crimes in the Domestic Violence Act are non-bailable. Husband or live-in partner who would be guilty of domestic violence can be put behind bars for one year and fined Rs 20,000.



(c) 2007, Shreerang Ketkar, All rights reserved.

Shreerang's Opinion:
Even as the average assets under management crossed the Rs 6 lakh crore mark, diversified equity MFs have finally beaten sensex and nifty.

Shreerang's Opinion:
General Motors and Chrysler will try on Wednesday to ease congressional concern over their plans to slash more than 2,400 dealerships.