Sir,
In such a situation let your friend who is the co-founder sign your experience letter. The point is what you have achieved as the Founder & CEO is important during the migration process. the co-founder's letter is very much valid from a legal stand point. As a stake holder of the organization your leadership skills can be seen. trust this helps
From India, Chennai
33In such a situation let your friend who is the co-founder sign your experience letter. The point is what you have achieved as the Founder & CEO is important during the migration process. the co-founder's letter is very much valid from a legal stand point. As a stake holder of the organization your leadership skills can be seen. trust this helps
From India, Chennai
Dear Korgaonkar,
In such matters, we may have to distinguish between the founder/subscriber and the ownere.
The following examples may probably give you reply to the point raised by you:
About 30 years back, on a cabinet note from the Government of India, I was assigned the job to form a PSU by carving our a part of one major department of the Government of India. I along with one assistant and a hired company secretary had to work on war footing, as we were given a time of only 6 weeks to get all the spade work to make the corporation functional. All the jobs right from finding a suitable name, approval from Registrar of Companies, framing a Memorandum & Articles of Association, registration of the company with the Registrar of the Company & getting a certificate of incorporation, getting a certificate of commencement of business by the company, etc. were accomplished by us. Since it was a company to be established under one Government Department, we had to take a few names jut for formality sake from the top brass of that department, as the subscribers to the MAA. Except that they were aware of the information that they were shown as the subscribers, they never made any contribution to any of the job, we did. Within 5 weeks, we were able to get all the jobs done except the certificate of commencement of business, as the same could be obtained only after making th company actually functional. After completion of the major work, the Board of Directors was appointed. I persally had to make all the resolutions to be approved by the Board to make the company functional. The next day first Board meeting was got conducted, resolutions were got passed, all other formalities of the companies were started to be completed. That included delegation of powers at various levels and making arrangement of a huge loan from the other wing of the department to to disburse the salary of the existing thousands of employees, who were made part of the corporation on deemed deputaation. A certificate of commencement was therefore could be managed to be obtained from the Registrar office two days before the target date to make that functional publically.
So, in the whole process, the reference of cabinet of Government of India, the department, subscribers to MAA, and the Board come in to picture. So, you may like to think, whether Cabinet of the Government of India, the subscribers to the MAA, the department or the Board can be considered as the founder of the company, while all the jobs were accomplished by a small team of three of us to make the company functional?
Another example can be on your person. Suppose, you establish a firm with the intention to establish your son in a business, do all the jobs by yourself, including the funding of the firm to make your son stand on strong footing. Just think, whether you or your son can be treated as founder of the firm. No question of owner.
From India, Delhi
In such matters, we may have to distinguish between the founder/subscriber and the ownere.
The following examples may probably give you reply to the point raised by you:
About 30 years back, on a cabinet note from the Government of India, I was assigned the job to form a PSU by carving our a part of one major department of the Government of India. I along with one assistant and a hired company secretary had to work on war footing, as we were given a time of only 6 weeks to get all the spade work to make the corporation functional. All the jobs right from finding a suitable name, approval from Registrar of Companies, framing a Memorandum & Articles of Association, registration of the company with the Registrar of the Company & getting a certificate of incorporation, getting a certificate of commencement of business by the company, etc. were accomplished by us. Since it was a company to be established under one Government Department, we had to take a few names jut for formality sake from the top brass of that department, as the subscribers to the MAA. Except that they were aware of the information that they were shown as the subscribers, they never made any contribution to any of the job, we did. Within 5 weeks, we were able to get all the jobs done except the certificate of commencement of business, as the same could be obtained only after making th company actually functional. After completion of the major work, the Board of Directors was appointed. I persally had to make all the resolutions to be approved by the Board to make the company functional. The next day first Board meeting was got conducted, resolutions were got passed, all other formalities of the companies were started to be completed. That included delegation of powers at various levels and making arrangement of a huge loan from the other wing of the department to to disburse the salary of the existing thousands of employees, who were made part of the corporation on deemed deputaation. A certificate of commencement was therefore could be managed to be obtained from the Registrar office two days before the target date to make that functional publically.
So, in the whole process, the reference of cabinet of Government of India, the department, subscribers to MAA, and the Board come in to picture. So, you may like to think, whether Cabinet of the Government of India, the subscribers to the MAA, the department or the Board can be considered as the founder of the company, while all the jobs were accomplished by a small team of three of us to make the company functional?
Another example can be on your person. Suppose, you establish a firm with the intention to establish your son in a business, do all the jobs by yourself, including the funding of the firm to make your son stand on strong footing. Just think, whether you or your son can be treated as founder of the firm. No question of owner.
From India, Delhi
Dear Kporgaonkar,
In addition to my last post, I may like to remind you that you may not forget to check the actual meaning of the term, "founder." According to dictionary meaning, a founder is a "creator", "originator, "initiator", "organizer," BUT CANNOT only be the the owner. So, a founder can be anyone other than owner also.
From India, Delhi
In addition to my last post, I may like to remind you that you may not forget to check the actual meaning of the term, "founder." According to dictionary meaning, a founder is a "creator", "originator, "initiator", "organizer," BUT CANNOT only be the the owner. So, a founder can be anyone other than owner also.
From India, Delhi
Respected Dhingra ji,
Thanks for your contribution in this subject matter especially for your posts addressing me.
Sir, you are very senior professional with far greater and rich experience than me. What you said in your posts # 12 & 13 is correct but I feel, that is not applicable to sole Proprietary or even to Partnership Firm. My question was pertaining to only sole Proprietary.
Even in Private Limited Company or in Public Limited Company and also in Limited Liability Company, a person should have some stake on paper to be called himself as a Founder, in my view.
In the examples given by you, element of stake is seen in both the cases and therefore, in both the cases you can rightly call the person/s as Founder/s or Co-Founders. (I presumed here the second case is not falling under sole Proprietary. First one is Public Limited Company as you mentioned).
In Proprietary, you can not call a person who helped you in forming the company as Founder. This is my view.
I submit this with due respect to you Sir.
From India, Mumbai
Thanks for your contribution in this subject matter especially for your posts addressing me.
Sir, you are very senior professional with far greater and rich experience than me. What you said in your posts # 12 & 13 is correct but I feel, that is not applicable to sole Proprietary or even to Partnership Firm. My question was pertaining to only sole Proprietary.
Even in Private Limited Company or in Public Limited Company and also in Limited Liability Company, a person should have some stake on paper to be called himself as a Founder, in my view.
In the examples given by you, element of stake is seen in both the cases and therefore, in both the cases you can rightly call the person/s as Founder/s or Co-Founders. (I presumed here the second case is not falling under sole Proprietary. First one is Public Limited Company as you mentioned).
In Proprietary, you can not call a person who helped you in forming the company as Founder. This is my view.
I submit this with due respect to you Sir.
From India, Mumbai
Koregaonkar ji,
Views may differ from person to person. It is the question of interpretation of the term. I have already stated, founder is a "creator", "originator, "initiator", "organizer." Existence of stake can be or cannot be there. Unlike the conditions prescribed for a subscriber of the MAA in the company case, there is a difference between the terms, "founder" and "subscriber." If we see a building, our vision normally goes to its upper structure, not the foundation on which that stands. Similarly in any organization founder usually goes to oblivision and only the owner can be seen in the forefront.
So, in the perspective of management, our vision should not be narrow unless that is prescribed or prohibited by law of the land. Even on review, laws are also liable to be treated as wrong. For example the Government of India introduced Section 66A in the Information Technolology Act in 2009, prescribing punishment of 3 years of imprisonment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc., but in 2015 the Supreme Court of India treated that as unconstitutional. So, interpretations depend upon the facts, circumstances and characteristics of any case.
From India, Delhi
Views may differ from person to person. It is the question of interpretation of the term. I have already stated, founder is a "creator", "originator, "initiator", "organizer." Existence of stake can be or cannot be there. Unlike the conditions prescribed for a subscriber of the MAA in the company case, there is a difference between the terms, "founder" and "subscriber." If we see a building, our vision normally goes to its upper structure, not the foundation on which that stands. Similarly in any organization founder usually goes to oblivision and only the owner can be seen in the forefront.
So, in the perspective of management, our vision should not be narrow unless that is prescribed or prohibited by law of the land. Even on review, laws are also liable to be treated as wrong. For example the Government of India introduced Section 66A in the Information Technolology Act in 2009, prescribing punishment of 3 years of imprisonment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc., but in 2015 the Supreme Court of India treated that as unconstitutional. So, interpretations depend upon the facts, circumstances and characteristics of any case.
From India, Delhi
I thank you all for your valuable suggestions. However, I must assert that our focus has been diverted to "scholarship" and "immigration" rather than the actual problem which can serve as a case study for many entrepreneurs. We should not be debating on the purpose of the letter, I just cited that as example, the core issue is "how to show the entrepreneurial experience if and when your startup is not in your name in legal documents?"
From Pakistan, Lahore
From Pakistan, Lahore
In a situation where you are not formally projected as Co-Founder then one of the ways would be to file for joint patent of the products that you have created. Another option will then be negotiating with the person in whose name the firm is right now and to convert it into a partnership firm as per laws of the land and gain semblance in the organization structure and a formal role.
From India, Chennai
From India, Chennai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Funny-sign-boar ds_49_444.jpg
SIGN UP FORM.doc