Limited liabilities Partnership_3

Other countries where this form is available ?

The LLP structure is available in countries like United Kingdom, United States of America, various Gulf countries, Australia and Singapore. On the advice of experts who have studied LLP legislations in various countries, the LLP Act is broadly based on UK LLP Act 2000 and Singapore LLP Act 2005. Both these Acts allow creation of LLPs in a body corporate form i.e. as a separate legal entity, separate from its partners/members.

Limited Liability Partnership_2

What are the advantages of LLP form ?

LLP form is a form of business model which:
(i) is organized and operates on the basis of an agreement.
(ii) provides flexibility without imposing detailed legal and procedural requirements
(iii) enables professional/technical expertise and initiative to combine with financial risk taking
capacity in an innovative and efficient manner

Limited Liability Partnership_1

What is concept of “limited liability partnership” ?



• LLP is an alternative corporate business form that gives the benefits of limited liability of a company and the flexibility of a partnership.
• The LLP can continue its existence irrespective of changes in partners. It is capable of entering into contracts and holding property in its own name.
• The LLP is a separate legal entity, is liable to the full extent of its assets but liability of the partners is limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP.
• Further, no partner is liable on account of the independent or un-authorized actions of other partners, thus individual partners are shielded from joint liability created by another partner’s wrongful business decisions or misconduct.
• Mutual rights and duties of the partners within a LLP are governed by an agreement between the partners or between the partners and the LLP as the case may be. The LLP, however, is not relieved of the liability for its other obligations as a separate entity. Since LLP contains elements of both ‘a corporate structure’ as well as ‘a partnership firm structure’ LLP is called a hybrid between a company and a partnership.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_81

Alpha Ltd. and Beta Ltd. entered into a scheme of amalgamation by which Alpha Ltd. would transfer its entire undertaking to Beta Ltd. However, the Central Government raised an objection that unless the objects clause of the companies are similar, and memorandum empowers to do so, the scheme of amalgamation cannot be permitted. Is the contention of the Central Government correct?

The power to amalgamate may flow from the memorandum or it may be acquired by resorting to the statute. Section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 indicates that a company which desires to amalgamate with another company will take necessary steps to come before a court for alteration of its memorandum in aid of such amalgamation. The statute confers a right on a company to alter its memorandum in aid of amalgamation with another company. The provisions contained in sections 391 to 396 and 494, illustrate instances of statutory power of amalgamating a company with another company without any specific power in the memorandum. [Hari Krishna Lokia (v) Hoolungooree Tea Co,].

Section 391 is not only a complete code, but it is in the nature of a single window clearance system to ensure that parties are not put to avoidable, unnecessary and cumber some procedure for making repeated applications to court for various alterations and changes. What is to be seen is the over all fairness mid feasibility of scheme of amalgamation and there need not be any 'unison of objects of both transferor and the transferee company. [R Morarjee Gokuldas spg. & wrg. Co.,]. To amalgamate with another company is the power of the company and not an object of the company. Irrespective of the objects clause, the court is empowered to sanction scheme of amalgamation provided it does not prejudice the interest of the public. Therefore, based on the above judicial rulings, the contention of the central government is not correct.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_80

A scheme of merger of XYZ Ltd with ABC Ltd was approved by the shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting and the exchange ratio of 3 shares of ABC Ltd for 20 shares in XYZ Ltd was approved. The proposal was also okayed by a lending financial institution which held 45% shares in XYZ Ltd. The valuation was carried out by one of the directors of XYZ Ltd who is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The valuation was affirmed by three independent valuers nominated by the shareholders in general meeting. However, certain leaseholder properties, under license, which were not transferable, were not taken into account in the valuation. While the scheme was awaiting the Court's sanction, it was challenged by certain shareholders on the ground that the exclusion of leasehold assets in the valuation made the scheme 'Unfair'. Decide giving reasons:
(i) Whether the contention of the shareholders is tenable?
(ii) What factors would the Court take into account in approving the exchange ratio?

The contention of the shareholders in this case shall not be tenable. The court is not to disturb a scheme unless the person who challenges the valuation satisfies the court that the valuation arrived at was grossly unfair. Valuation in this case was approved by the shareholders and also okayed by the lending institution(s) which are usually well-informed and scrutinize the scheme with expert’s eye and which are also presumed to act bonafide. In the similar case of Tata Oil Mills Ltd. Re. (1994), the court held that the presumption of fairness was writ large on the face of the scheme. The Court did not attach importance to the fact that certain leasehold assets and properties held under license were excluded from valuation. Such assets, the court said, were neither transferable nor heritable. They are in the nature of a personal privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision in Hindustan Lever Employee‘s Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1994) and accepted the exchange ratio proposed. The Supreme Court found no objection to the
valuation being done by one of the directors of TOMCO (XYZ Co. in this case). His report did not show any prejudice and was also affirmed by the independent valuers. Supreme Court also enumerated all the possible methods of valuation such as, market price, book value and yield basis and pointed out that a combination of all or some of the methods, may have to be adopted in circumstances of a particular case. Thus based on the above explanation and the decisions given by the Supreme Court, it can be concluded that the contention of the shareholders that the
exclusion of certain leasehold assets in the valuation has made the scheme unfair, shall not be tenable.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_79

The Board meeting of Fortune Ltd. has the following schedules for the year 2009:
1st Meeting - 1st January, 2009
2nd Meeting - 30th June, 2009
3rd Meeting - 1st July, 2009
4th Meeting - 31st December, 2009
State whether the Board Meetings schedules are as per compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. What would be your views if the meeting to be held on 30th June, 2009 is adjourned due to lack of quorum?




As per Section 285, in the case of every company, a meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held at least once in every three months and at least four such meetings shall be held in every year. The section does not state the gap between two board meetings. In the present case four meetings have been scheduled for the year 2009 even though the gap between two board meetings is more than 3 months. However, as per the section there appear to be no contravention. If the Board meeting to be held on 30th June, is adjourned due to lack of quorum, again a meeting is held on some other date, the company shall not be deemed to have
contravened the provisions of Section 285. If the said meeting is proposed to be held on 30th June, 2009 and assumingly to be adjourned for want of quorum, the meeting automatically stand adjourned by virtue of Section 288 (1) till the same day in the next week, at the same time and place. And if the same day is a public holiday, then the meeting stands adjourned till the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_78

In a public company the total number of directors are 12 and 2 office of the directors have fallen vacant. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
(a) What would be the quorum for the Board meeting?
(b) Can the articles of a company fix the quorum (higher or lower) for the Board meeting?
(c) Assuming if there are 15 directors in the company and of which 13 happen to be interested directors, what would be the quorum?
(d) How do you resolve the situation if all the directors are interested in a particular transaction?

Where total number of directors are 12 and 2 offices of the directors have fallen vacant, we find: 1/3 of (12-2) = 1/3 of 10 = 3 1/3 directors. If the fraction of 3rd were to be rounded off as one then 4, i.e. 3+1 directors would constitute the quorum for the Board meetings. If at any time the number of the remaining directors exceeds or is equal to two thirds of the total strength, the number of the remaining directors who are non-interested but present at the meeting, not being less than two shall constitute the quorum. For example, there are in all 15 directors and the Board meeting commences with all the 15 directors. During the currency of the meeting, an item comes up for discussion in respect of which 13 happen to be “interested” directors. In this case, in spite of the excess of the interested directors being more than two-thirds, the prescribed minimum number of noninterested directors constituting the quorum, namely, 2 present at the meeting are to transact the particular item of business.