Update
TG
One Person Company – a still-born, half-baked concept?
<> Sporadic:
OPC, for obvious reasons, makes a non-sense of not just one but more than one basic concept, historically known, followed and for a good measure, accepted under the law on corporate. Ostensibly,the brain(s) behind the half-baked idea has chosen to take cues from and mostly been influenced by the extant practice in place across borders.It is an attempt which by any 'logic' is deplorable. To bring about and give a statutory recognition and acceptance to such a drastic and violent conceptual change, making a mockery of the age-old concepts of 'company', 'shareholder', so on, are certain to robbing them of the underlying fundamentals. To be precise, there is a contradiction in terms to call a sole owner a holder of 'SHARE' (-literally and grammatically implying a second person, to share with, not a sole and lone absolute owner).
While there has been globally a cry, a loud and unmistakably hoarse one, for 'governance' , that too with 'good' for an ideological prefix, particularly in relation to the affairs of the corporate world, it is incomprehensible , rather unintelligible, why the masters of the novel idea first of all even happened to conceive of such an idea. And done so, knowing fully well that it could only spell disaster, impacting the valuable rights and interests of the public at large; that is, those who would be fated to have any dealing with such a OPC, if it were to be born /take off.
(unedited- left to right minded experts to do so, then deliberate in-depth and at least share with the concerned rest for the common welfare)
Perceptibly, the write-up is one-sided . In that, it has thrown up certain plus and minus points of concern, but only from the viewpoint of a person already engaged or a new business enterprise; and on as to whether OPC would find favour as a preferred choice of a form of entity for carrying on any trade or business. In other words, the other side of the coin- namely, the more important aspect of its advantages or otherwise, or shortcomings, from the viewpoint of the persons at large who may have dealings with it has been oversighted, not even touched upon.
The considerations coming into play wrt dealings with a LLP , another form of entity mooted not long ago, again a concept likewise imported from abroad, but already given statutory recognition and in place for some time now. would, in many respects,be no different but be of equal relevance and application to this yet another latest novelty i.e. OPC .
For a critique, one may read the two published articles -
TG
One Person Company – a still-born, half-baked concept?
<> Sporadic:
OPC, for obvious reasons, makes a non-sense of not just one but more than one basic concept, historically known, followed and for a good measure, accepted under the law on corporate. Ostensibly,the brain(s) behind the half-baked idea has chosen to take cues from and mostly been influenced by the extant practice in place across borders.It is an attempt which by any 'logic' is deplorable. To bring about and give a statutory recognition and acceptance to such a drastic and violent conceptual change, making a mockery of the age-old concepts of 'company', 'shareholder', so on, are certain to robbing them of the underlying fundamentals. To be precise, there is a contradiction in terms to call a sole owner a holder of 'SHARE' (-literally and grammatically implying a second person, to share with, not a sole and lone absolute owner).
While there has been globally a cry, a loud and unmistakably hoarse one, for 'governance' , that too with 'good' for an ideological prefix, particularly in relation to the affairs of the corporate world, it is incomprehensible , rather unintelligible, why the masters of the novel idea first of all even happened to conceive of such an idea. And done so, knowing fully well that it could only spell disaster, impacting the valuable rights and interests of the public at large; that is, those who would be fated to have any dealing with such a OPC, if it were to be born /take off.
(unedited- left to right minded experts to do so, then deliberate in-depth and at least share with the concerned rest for the common welfare)
Perceptibly, the write-up is one-sided . In that, it has thrown up certain plus and minus points of concern, but only from the viewpoint of a person already engaged or a new business enterprise; and on as to whether OPC would find favour as a preferred choice of a form of entity for carrying on any trade or business. In other words, the other side of the coin- namely, the more important aspect of its advantages or otherwise, or shortcomings, from the viewpoint of the persons at large who may have dealings with it has been oversighted, not even touched upon.
The considerations coming into play wrt dealings with a LLP , another form of entity mooted not long ago, again a concept likewise imported from abroad, but already given statutory recognition and in place for some time now. would, in many respects,be no different but be of equal relevance and application to this yet another latest novelty i.e. OPC .
For a critique, one may read the two published articles -
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Published (as modified): The write-up has thrown up certain plus and minus points of concern, but from the viewpoint of a person already engaged in, or a new, business enterprise; and focusing on as to whether OPC would find favour as a preferred choice of a form of entity for carrying on any trade or business. In other words, the other side of the coin- namely, the more important aspect of its advantages or otherwise, or shortcomings, from a societal angle,- i.e. from the viewpoint of the persons at large who may have dealings with it -has to be necessarily not lost sight of. What requires to be specially noted is that, the same considerations coming into play, wrt dealings with a LLP , another form of entity mooted not long ago, again a concept likewise imported from abroad, but already given statutory recognition, rightly or wrongly, and in place for some time now. would, in many respects, be no different but be of equal relevance and application to this yet another latest novelty of OPC . For a critique, one may read the two published articles on - LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP - (2005)128 Comp.Cas1 - (2006) 65 SCL 42 Another article,- INVESTOR PROTECTION, A MYTH, (2005) (3) KLJ 17 brings to bear serious disadvantages and exposure to high risks of a similar nature in case of having a contract agreement with a partnership firm, e.g. realty sector chosen for commonly known reasons. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment