Reduction of
share capital of a company
Section 100 of the
companies Act,1956
|
|||
As far as a
sole trader is concerned, his capital is the excess of assets over
liabilities. He can withdraw the capital from his business as he likes. Such
a withdrawal will not affect his creditors. This is because his creditors can
look to his assets for the satisfaction of their claims. The matter is same
in the case of partnership also.
|
|||
The situation is entirely different in the case of a
Company. The assets of the Company are not the assets of the members. Like,
the assets of members are not the assets of the Company. Here, a creditor can
only look to the assets of the Company. He cannot look beyond the Company and
make the assets of the members liable for his claims.
|
|||
Thus for a Company, capital is a fund, which must be
maintained intact. The capital cannot be returned to the members even masked
as dividend. Section 205 of Companies Act, 1956 provides that dividend shall
be paid only out of profits.
|
|||
But a Company can reduce its share capital, if the
Articles of Association of the Company allows it and subjected to the
approval of the Tribunal. Section 100 provides for it. Here the reduction of
capital means reduction of issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the
Company not the authorized capital.
|
|||
Let us look into a situation where a Company trades
at a loss year after year. After years, the capital of the Company will not
be represented by the assets. So to make the capital truly representing the
assets, it has to reduce the capital. Capital can be reduced Under the
following situations:
|
|||
1. When capital is
not represented by the assets; and
|
|||
2. A situation of
over capitalization.
|
|||
The Tribunal will not allow reduction of capital
unless the interests of creditors, members and public at large are safe
guarded.
The Act does not prescribe any manner for reduction
of share capital. The following types are commonly adopted by Companies.
|
|||
1.
|
Reduction of
liability of members in respect of un called or unpaid capital
|
||
|
|
Rs. 5 has been paid for a Rs.10/- share. The Company
may reduce the unpaid amount to Rs.2/- instead of the present Rs.5/-.
|
|
2.
|
Extinguishment of
liability of members in respect of unpaid share capital.
|
||
|
|
Rs. 5 has been paid for a Rs.10/- share, the Company
can extinguish the liability to pay the unpaid amount of Rs.5/-.
|
|
3.
|
Paying off paid
up capital not required for the business of the Company.
|
||
|
|
Shares are
Rs.10/- fully paid up, Company can reduce them to Rs.5/- and paying back
Rs.5/- per share.
|
|
4.
|
Purchase of shares by directors.
|
||
5.
|
Cancellation of all the share capital as part of
arrangement.
|
||
Fewer than two situations, reduction of capital can
be effected without the sanction of Court or Tribunal. They are:
|
|||
1. Surrender of
shares; and
2. Forfeiture of
shares.
In both cases, the membership is terminated. Both are
effective only if Articles of Association of the Company allows it.
|
|||
Other
situations:
|
|||
1.
|
In the case of oppression and mismanagement, the
Tribunal has special powers under Section 397 and 398. Apart from this, the
Tribunal has special powers under Section 402. This Section grants power the
Tribunal to order the purchase of the shares of any member by the Company;
and that will result into reduction of share capital. In this case special
resolution is not necessary.
|
||
2.
|
Registrar of Companies has been empowered to write
off the name of defunct Company. In
such a case, a reduction of capital cannot be prevented (Great Universal Stores Limited , Re (1960))
|
||
3.
|
An unlimited Company to which Section 100 does not
apply can reduce the capital in any manner as its Articles of Association
allows (Borough
Commercial and Bldg. Society (1893))
|
||
4.
|
Where different amounts are paid up on shares of the
same class, the reduction can be effected by equilising the amount so paid(Marwari Stores
Limited v. Gouri Shanker Goenka (1936))
|
||
5.
|
The certificate issued by Registrar of Companies
confirming reduction is conclusive even later it was discovered that the
Company had no authority under its Articles of Association to reduce the
capital (Re
Walkar & Smith Limited(1903))
|
||
No comments:
Post a Comment