As M&A lawyer:

I think the average CS focuses too much on compliance aspects without zooming out to see larger picture. In a global deal, that Companies Act fine upto INR 500,000 for some pointless missed / incorrect filing is hardly ever "material".

If you, as a CS, are able to think a little laterally and suggest approaches apart from parroting "do compounding", you will go far.

Lol, every exam is an aptitude test. CAT is an aptitude test- noone in right mind would equate CS with an IIM Ahmedabad MBA, would he/she/they? If anything, aptitude test is a better judge of IQ- I do not know if you are aware but in older days, IQ tests were taken to judge a person's suitability for most jobs.

Lol....I am a National Law Schoolite and a rank Holder CS....I would not even call CS as even approaching a tough exam. The pass percentages even in professional stage are upwards of 30%

Source:- https://www.shiksha.com/accounting-commerce/articles/icsi-cs-pass-percentage-for-cs-executive-and-cs-professional-blogId-109727

CS needs commercial knowledge for understanding the law but lawyers don't have it.

A CS shall not approve an audited financial statement unless he understands what the CA guy has done. If he does then penalty will be charged on the company including him as he is a officer in default.

Corporate governance needs wealth maximisation of a firm so that the share holders are happy. A CS shall take care of CG that includes financial management. No lawyer can do financial management.

Sale of goods or transfer of property shall be passed in the general meeting for share holders approval. If a CS simply pass it without the knowledge of TPA act or registration act then the company will be in trouble.

So a CS shall have a legal knowledge in all field plus accounting knowledge like CA because when a CA does any mistake the whole burden comes on CS head. And if a lawyer makes a mistake again CS is responsible.

That is the reason the ICSI is making all the candidate to fail so that the cream of passed out shall know their responsibility.

lol. cseet pass percentage(1st lvl) is 50% but if u go further for cs exe(2nd lvl) that drops to 5% for both group and even further for cs pro(3rd lvl) its around 10%

so by simple math about 0.25 people out of a 100 clear all the levels in one go

CA has even lesser pass percentages cuz more students appear for it and yeah I agree CA has more jobs and scope compares to cs but also keep this in mind there are 400k+ CAs in I ndia as compared to mere 70K for CS.

get ur facts right vakil sahab :)

Lmao 20%? If you even think 9% is the real passing percentage, you are either naive or really bad at math. That's the percentage of people clearing one group. And this time around, the pass percentages for the professional level have come down to 7% (that's 7% of those 9% who have cleared the executive level, lol). Taking everything together, the chances of you clearing all three stages in one go, or, let's say, 3Y is much lesser that that. Don't agree? Do the math yourself.

tier 1 nlu bros,

cracking an aptitude test is your greatest achievement. then a good chunk of yall comfortably slip into generic meaningless activism, human rights, liberal arts yada yada yada.

sure none of yall have an as comprehensive knowledge of subjects as a CS exe student.

Arey rattu popat! In the real world we can refer to the relevant provisions readily, instead of relying on memory, to figure out the answer. Even if someone would be unaware about the conditions that are required to be satisfied for a buy-back, as long as they are smart enough to figure out where to look up for the most updated version of the SEBI regulations, they will figure out the answer to it.

Instead, let me ask you some practical questions which wouldn't have been taught to you in your CS textbooks or prep material.

Q1. What is the reasoning behind adding the phrase "based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount." to regulation 4(i) of the buy-back regulations?

Q2. In the explanation to regulation 4(i), the phrase "based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount." is absent. Would it mean that when computing the maximum limit for equity shares, I can disregard the said phrase?

Q3. If you would refer the footnotes to the phrase " based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount.", it states that the amendment is w.e.f 9th March 2023. But what about cases where a buy back has already been made public before this date? In such a case will the proviso to regulation 4(iv)(b) be applicable?

I am sure that 100% of company secretaries wouldn't even get close to answering these questions satisfactorily.

An extract of Balance Sheet of Airrath Aviation Ltd., comprises of : Equity Share Capital 12% Preference Share Capital 14% Debenture capital (i) 30,00,000 of 50 each 5,00,000 of 500 each 15,00,000 of 500 each Ascertain the maximum equity share capital and the number of equity shares that can be bought back in the present case. (ii) What is meant by buy-back through tender offer under SEBI (Buy-Back of Securities) Regulations, 2018.

This is a question asked this year.

70 percent of the "corporate lawyers" in this thread wont be able to solve it without any help.

Man so many stupid CAs/CSs commenting over here, thinking they are better than lawyers, and that they have achieved some huge feat because they passed exams which literally only forced them to memorize word-to-word what is printed in their course books (only to make it is easier/faster for examiners to check answers instead of checking if the student actually understands what they wrote).

Yeah and it is no surprise that the people who end up enrolling in such colleges (where attendance is minimum and you need to write whatever in exams to pass) are primarily CAs/CSs (who are well versed with the art of writing whatever to pass exams because they have already passed such an exam). So what's your point? 90% of CAs/CSs will also not be able to do basic things which they should be proficient at even if their life depended on it.

What rigors? You go beyond the NLUs and the top 2-3 private law schools, you will see the quality education imparted in our country. I'd say at some NLUs, even.

At many law schools you don't even need to attend the classes. Just write whatever in the exam. It's probably the easiest course to get into and graduate from. Thinking otherwise is just delusional to make yourself feel better. There is a reason why 90% of lawyers are incompetent and wouldn't be able to make a proper draft of anything even if their life dependent upon it.

This reminds me - I've had to argue with two CAs myself over some very simple things only for them to agree at a later stage. One of them was doing my tax filing and would have made me pay higher tax. Like, it's your only job ffs, I don't even practice taxation law how do you know this less than I do?

I once advised a CS on very basic queries concerning ICSI's secretarial standards (which is something that he should have been an expert in). I even explained my CA why his way of filing my tax return was wrong and after a lengthy discussion he agreed. So personally, even I would think about quitting if I ended up working with Chaturs like you.

Every CS is employable but every lawyer is not.

A company secretary can understand everything a lawyer does but a lawyer cannot ! In fact, a company secretary does more good to the business than a lawyer who fails to understand the section's impact on the business and its operations.

Speaking from my own experience (as a law student from T2/T3 law school as well as a CS aspirant), law school in itself is a holistic experience which develops the student holistically in terms of knowledge, networking skills, research, drafting, internships, etc. So once an individual graduates as a lawyer, he/she knows how the things go around in terms of law, in general (this opinion is based on the premise that one attends a full-time law school and not by correspondence).

On the other hand, CS provides you with core in-depth knowledge about how the general corporate and commercial law works without emphasizing much upon the holistic development of the CS student.One key area where a law student will definitely have an edge is research because in the whole syllabus of CS (2017 or 2022) there are no components for research, whereas a law student from day one is taught to work on research and finding better precedence.

I am sorry I don't agree- i am both a National Law Schoolite and a CS. Most people are simply not motivated to do CS because CS does not really have any sort of great prestige attached to it. Most dropouts are because of the aforesaid motivation issues. If you are from a National Law School, CS adds nothing to your employability. You would have got the same job if you had not done your CS. You don't seem to know much on this. The passing rates of CS are very high- CS is a very simple exam.

To be honest, the difference lies purely in approach- take for example, something like securitisation or direct assignment in structured finance. Most professional lawyers in the field would understand that the roots of the subject lie in Transfer of Property Act- a CS would start by looking at SEBI regulations, even if the securitised instruments are unlisted. Don't want to insult CS people too much but it is neither law nor accounts and to be honest, most CS do not make employable lawyers due to lack of nous about research.

Lawyers excel with connecting the dots. But yes, once the dots are connected in novel or new situations, i.e., once it is out in the public domain, then the CS and the CAs apply it mindlessly until a new novel situation comes up where connected dots are not available in the public domain.

Off late I have seen law firms increasingly hire CSs to perform their corporate law work. Let's be honest, they have a better grasp (through just rote learning) of company law, securities law and tax. There must be something that law firms, lawyers specially, know and possess that is more valuable than CS firms - that's why we charge far higher fees.

What is it?