The Hindu Business Line : Company law reforms

This is with reference to "Guarding the turf from predatory professionals" (Business Line August 3): First, there was no need to introduce pre-certification since the company secretary of the company concerned, which has filed the e-forms, is already under a legal obligation to ensure its correctness in the normal course of his job. And if at all pre-certification MCA-21 has not only undermined the importance of this profession but has also created avoidable ambiguities.

The amendments to the Act in 2000 introduced the requirement of furnishing of compliance certificates (with all the applicable provisions of the Act) in respect of companies, which are not mandatorily required to appoint company secretaries.However, notwithstanding this legal empowerment practical experience has proved that these practising company secretaries are subordinate to the statutory auditors (chartered accountants in practice) due to their proximity to the management.

The law has not done enough to compel companies to appoint company secretaries. The extant Section 383A is strange in the sense that it allows errant companies to avoid the requirement of appointing company secretaries on specified grounds.

Amit K. Vyas

Mumbai

Letters to the editor and contributions can be sent by e-mail to: bleditor@thehindu.co.in

More Stories on : Letters | Awards & Honours | Corporate Governance

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Caution on Asean FTA

Ensuring `faithful representation' in financial reports

Guarantee on capital, not returns

When does private turn public?

If only `torn books' repaired themselves `as they landed upon their shelves'

On a mole's trail

Pharmaceutical policy draft — Must go beyond price control

Thrall of terror

Banking regulation, supervision and Monetary Policy

Company law reforms