Bill, 1967 28 Narayan, Shri MD Narayanappa, Shri Sanda. Shrimati
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
27 Companies (Amdt.) [ RAJYA SABH4 ] Bill, 1967 28 Narayan, Shri M. D. Narayanappa, Shri Sanda. Shrimati Narayani Devi Manaklal Varma. Neki Ram, Shri. Parthasarathy, Shri R. T. Prasad, Shri Bhola Pratibha Singh, Shrimati. Purakayastha, Shri Mahitosh. Puri, Shri Dev Datt. Raju, Shri V. B. Ramaswamy, Shri K. S. Ramiah, Dr. K. Rao, Shri Katragadda Srinivas. Reddy, Shri M. Srinivasa, Reddy, Shri Mulka Govinda. Roshan Lal, Shri. Roy, Shri Biren. Sangma, Shri E. M. Satyavati Dang, Shrimati. Sen, Dr. Triguna. Sherkhan, Shri. Sh,ukla, Shri Chakrapani. MR. CHAIRMAN: That I have concluded. Singh, Shri Dalpat. I _ __ Sinha, Shri Awadheshwar Prasad. Sivaprakasam, Shri S. THE COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) Suraj Prasad, Shri. BILL, 1967 Sushila Mansukhalal Desai, Miss. SHRI CHITTA BASU (West Bengal) : Tiwary, Pt. Bhawaniprasad. Sir, I beg to move: Usha Barthakur, Shrimati. Venigalla Satyanarayana, Shri. "That the Bill further to amend the Companies Act, 1956, be taken into Yadav, Shri Shyam Lal. consideration." Yajee, Shri Sheel Bhadra. Sir, the object of my Bill was to amend the NOES—3 Companies Act on the question whether companies cannot make donation to political Bhagwat Dayal, Shri. parties, individuals and other bodies also. I Rajnarain, Shri. introduced my Bill late in the year 1967 and Reddy, Shri N. Sri Rama. there was a public agitation in support of the basic principles underlying my amendment. The motion was adopted. And, Sir, it took the Government about two years to make up its mind and ultimately, in The Bill was, by leave, withdrawn. 1969, the Government came forward with an amending Bill accepting the proposal which I made in my Bill1 also. 29 Companies (AmcL i [ 10 DEC. 1971 ] Bill, 1967 30 Sir, the Government Bill which was passed got the assent of the President, it is being by the House relates more or less to the same implemented. Now, Sir, is it really in order to provision which I wanted to amend. But, bring forward this type of Bill when even after the Government's amending Bill Parliament has already passed such a Bill? I was accepted by the House, 1 think, Sir, the fail to understand how this Bill can be dis- major problem which faces the country has cussed on the floor of the House. We have not yet been overcome. already a Bill that has been passed by Parliament. Sir, the first defect of the Government measure is that the Government, under this SHRI CHITTA BASU: No, Sir. My point Act, proposed to give effect to the provision is this: So far as the effect with respect to my after the third day of April 1970. The Bill is concerned, it was to be given proposal which I made was to give immediate immediate effect. But the Government effect, because the danger was very much there and unless there was immediate effect wanted to give effect to it in 1970. to the provision concerned, the menace which had been created cannot be really curbed. SHRI BABUBHAI M. CHINAI: Sir, I But, Sir, in order to save the vested interests think it would be better if you give your or the parties or the companies or the big ruling. It is really surprising. It will be a industrial houses which are in collusion with wrong precedent for this House to discuss a or which are having a close relation with the measure which was introduced in 1967 and Government, the Government wanted to afterwards the Government took the initiative. implement or give effect to the provision only ... from the third day of April, 1970. (Interruptions) Sir, I think the House is aware of the fact that there have been allegations in this SHRI CHITTA BASU: Please listen to country that the political parties, particularly me. the undivided Congress Party, received enormous amount of money from the SHRI BABUBHAI M. CHINAI: ... and industrial houses of our oountry. It is not only now the President's assent has been obtained the undivided Congress Party, but the other and the Bill is a law now and at this stage, parties also like th« Swatantra Party, the Jana after lj years or rather nearly two years, a Sangh and some other parties were also the Member is putting a Bill before the House recipients of large amounts of money from and I personally feel that it is not relevant. the industrial houses and the power of money in the hands of those industrial houses. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA (West Bengal): SHRI BABUBHAI M. CHINAI Sir, to make it absolutely clear: If you read (Maharashtra): Sir. on a point of order. My the two Bills, the Government's amending friend, Shri Chitta Basu, sayn that he Act and this one, you will find that the words introduced this Bill in 1967. Since then the are entirely different and it is the private Government has passed a Bill in both the limited company. Houses in order to put a ban on donation to MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, I the political parties. would like him to state his point first. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. SHRI CHITTA BASU: Sir, I say that there SHRT BABUBHAI M. CHINAI: After is a difference between the Government Bill that Bill has been passed and and mine, and you can take up those two and see. 31 Companies (Amdt.) [ RAJYA SABHA ] Bill, 1967 32 [Shri Chitta Basu] money to the political parties of their choice Therefore, Sir, many political parties—I through the agencies of trusts. mentioned some of the names also.... Again, Sir, it has come to my notice that SHRI AKBAR ALI KHAN (Andhra those industrial houses also contribute large Pradesh): Mr. Chitta Basu, when you sums of money through partnership firms. introduced it, the Government Bill was not Sir, if the objective was to stop all kinds of there. The Government Bill was not there. donations to political parties by the industrial houses so that the democratic functioning of SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: Mr. Akbar Ali our country is not in any way affected, the Khan, don't disturb him now. basic purpose of the Act has been completely SHRI CHITTA BASU: I have already defeated because it does not cover partnership stated that it took about two years for the firms; it does not cover trusts. Government, after the introduction of my Bill, to make up its mind. Ultimately, the Govern- (Mr. Deputy Chairman in the Chu ment decided to amend the particular section. Sir, it has also been brought to my notice But that does not fulfil the entire objective. that these principal companies sometimes And for that, further amendment of the Act is bring pressure upon their selling agents, upon also necessary. I am coming to that point. their distributors, to make contributions to (Interruptions). Listen and then come to the political parties. Instead of making decision. Even after coming to a decision, contributions directly, these big industrial they left a loophole; that is, this law would houses continue the practice or indulge in the take effect after the 3rd of May, 1970. It has, practice of pressurizing their distributors and however, been publicly said by the selling agents which are nothing but a part Government even that the donations—large and parcel of the companies, to make liberal amounts of donations— were made prior to donations to the political parties or individuals that—in 1965, in 1967 and in previous years of their choice. Therefore, Sir, the basic also. Therefore, the law has lost much of its objective of banning contributions to the effect because many contributions were made political parties in order to see that the earlier than that date fixed by the Act of the functioning of our democracy is not adversely Government. affected, has not been fulfilled. Sir, again, this amending Act, as has been So, far as the individuals are concerned, the passed by this House, is applicable only to Act also says that there should not be any registered companies. It is not applicable to contribution by any industrial house or any trusts. There are a large number of trusts in company to the individuals. The 11 A.M. our country run by the big industrial houses. Government has failed to effectively This Companies (Amendment) Act of 1969 as implement the provisions. I find reports in the passed by Parliament does not cover trusts. It newspapers of sending several thousands of also does not cover partnership firms. Sir. I rupees to certain political individuals prying think you are aware that industrial houses still that they are anonymous contributions. From do continue to donate enormous sums of whom does the money come for his purposes? moneys to certain political parties in order to He merely says that the money was received retain their vested interests over these poli- by him from somebody whom he does not tical parties, in order to cripple the democratic know. He does not even like to give out the functioning of our Parliament. They donate name. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are larpe amounts of not sufficient. 33 Companies (Amdt.) [ RAJYA SABHA ] Bill, 1967 34 SHRI SHEEL BHADRA YAJEE (Bihar): MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That has Who is that person? already been done. SHRI CHITTA BASU: Mr. Nija-lingappa. SHRI CHITTA BASU: The law which has He says that person regularly gave some been passed is not effective. envelope full of currency notes. He gets envelopes full of currency notes, and from MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The same whom? Therefore the object of preventing words have been used in that Act. donations from industrial houses, big companies to political parties, political bodies SHRI CHITTA BASU: But I also want to or individuals in the Act are defeated.