Statement Of Dissolution Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Follow TS GREWAL's DOUBLE ENTRY BOOK KEEPING for Class 12, apart from NCERT booksComplete your projects (2 for accountancy) within December so that you can focus on the chapters for at least 2 months. The projects comprise of 20 marks, so they have to be given some importance too!The basic concepts for Admission and Retirement of a partner are almost the same. So, learn those basics, like how to treat premium for goodwill, which items in the Balance Sheet to be distributed, etc.It would be ideal for you to spend not more than 3 weeks on the first 5 chapters, if you learn everyday.Learn the COMPANY ACCOUNTS chapter for at least 10 days. It is perhaps the most important and most difficult chapter in the subject. Practice many sums on FORFEITURE & REISSUE of shares.The basic concepts for COMPANY ACCOUNTS and DEBENTURES is the same. By basic, I mean the issue of debentures. Redemption of debentures can be given more attention after you are thorough with the issue of debentures.The remaining chapters like Dissolution of a firm and Goodwill can be learnt after practicing the chapters on shares, debentures and partnership.For the second volume, read the book line-by-line. This would help you in answering the one-mark and three-mark questions in SECTION-B.Give more attention to ACCOUNTING RATIOS and CASH FLOW STATEMENT in the second volume. Only one question will come from the comparative and common-size financial statements chapter; that question will most probably be related to creation of comparative or common-size balance sheets or statements of profit & loss.If you intend to buy TS GREWAL's book, you have SCANNER and EVALUATION questions after all the chapters. There are variety of high quality questions in these sections of the book.Do not spend more than 2 weeks for the second volume, as it comprises only of 20 marks!In the last 1 or 2 weeks, practice SAMPLE PAPERS and LAST YEAR's PAPERS as much as you can.GOOD LUCK for your exams! :)

This question gets asked in so many different ways, but my answer remains the same.The first thing to understand about the Russian annexation of Ukrainian Crimea is that there is the Russian version of the truth, and then there is the truth understood and accepted by the entire rest of the world.“Truth,” as David Mitchell wrote, “is singular. Its versions are mistruths.”When you see answers that bandy about terms like neo-nazi and fascist to describe the democratically, internationally recognized government of democratic Ukraine, you can safely assume you are being treated to Russian propaganda from the Internet Research Agency. Do not be confused if you see western names or countries of origin as part of the writers’ profiles. It is the tiresome work of Putin’s Olgino trolls, who are willing to prostitute themselves for a handful of rubles.I’ll stick to verifiable, fact-based statements of truth, presented without the colorful editorializing that accompanies so many of the Russian versions presented here. So that you may judge for yourself I have provided numerous links to support statements of fact.Let’s begin with history, since many apologists for the Russian annexation like to claim Crimea is, and always has been, Russian.WHO HAS A HISTORICAL CLAIM TO CRIMEA?Crimea was indeed part of the Russian Imperial state for 135 years, from 1783 until 1918. However, it was controlled by the Greek Byzantine Empire for 650 years, by the Mongols for 200 years, and Ottoman Turkey for 340 years. Russia has controlled Crimea for about 5% of its history. If one were to make a case based solely on who has “always” owned Crimea, then present day Turkey would have the stronger argument.In the 20th century, Crimea came under the control of Soviet Russia for 32 years, from 1922 until it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. Since the breakup of the USSR in 1991, Crimea has been part of Ukraine, meaning that for the 60 years prior to the Russian annexation, every country in the world, including the Russian Federation under president Vladimir Putin, recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine.History, as we can see, does not provide a conclusive answer to the present day status of Crimea. So, what does international law, national constitutions, and bi-lateral and international treaties tell us?WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO CRIMEA?In 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union authorized the following decree,On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.Crimea became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic for the last 37 years of the USSR.When the Soviet Union broke up Crimea became an autonomous republic within Ukraine. In 1998, the constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established Crimea's status and authority within Ukraine.Therefore, the status of Crimea as Ukrainian was a recognized fact in the Soviet Union for 37 years, and by the Russian Federation for 23 years. For 60 years the leadership in the Kremlin, including Vladimir Putin, acknowledged Ukrainian Crimea. Moscow could have easily taken Crimea at any time over those six decades but did not.The annexation even violated the Russian Constitution. It states, in Chapter 1, Article 4(2), for any state to be accepted into the Russian Federation, there must be mutual consent of Russia and the other state. Ukraine obviously did not give that consent.Article 6(1) of the Russian Federal Constitution also requires that the foreign state be the “initiator of a proposal concerning acceptance in the Russian Federation as a new subject of a foreign State or part thereof” in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Federal Constitutional Law. It goes without saying that Ukraine did not initiate a request for Crimea to join the Russian Federation.Even as late as 2014, the year of the Russian military takeover of Ukrainian Crimea, it was commonly accepted in Russia that Crimea was, indeed, Ukrainian. Please note on this Russian language, Russian produced map from 2014 that Crimea is not listed as Russian or even as disputed, but is correctly identified as part of Ukraine (far left of map).Every Russian school child in 2014 understood that Crimea was Ukrainian.In annexing Ukrainian Crimea Putin also violated Russian and Soviet international treaties, as well as agreements with Ukraine. Annexing Crimea was a violation of 80 different international agreements and 407 bilateral agreements with Ukraine, all of which Russia entered into voluntarily. The number of violations are too numerous to list here, but let’s just look at a representative sample.Both Soviet Russia and Ukraine are founding signatories of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits threats or use of force against another state.After the Russian annexation, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and calling the referendum that led to Russia’s annexation of its Crimean Peninsula illegal. One hundred nations supported the resolution. Only 11 opposed it.This isn’t a minor technicality involving some convoluted legal agreement. Russia’s annexation is a violation of the fundamental cornerstone of international law.Finally, the annexation violated bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Russia. After the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. the two countries signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation; the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances; the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine; as well as of the Agreement between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Use of Airspace of Ukraine and of Airspace Over the Black Sea, and many more bilateral agreements.All these agreements, freely entered into by Russia, affirmed that Crimea is Ukrainian.According to the 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty, both countries agreed to "respect each other's territorial integrity, and confirm the inviolability of the borders existing between them."Existing borders that included Ukrainian Crimea.From the Budapest memorandum, signed by Russia in 1994:1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.In exchange, Ukraine gave up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.The Budapest Memorandum is only one of the many agreements and treaties with Ukraine which Russia has broken by illegally annexing the Crimean peninsula and occupying part of Ukraine’s Donbass region. In 1997 both countries signed the Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty. At the signing ceremony in Kyiv the Russian president said, “I vow at this sacred place, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, that the treaty that we sign today will be fulfilled…We respect and honor the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”Crimea was a part of Ukraine when all those agreements were signed. Nowhere did Russia ask for an addendum or wording in the many treaties and agreements it signed saying, “except Crimea.”WAS THE 2014 REFERENDUM FREE, FAIR, AND LEGAL?There is an internationally recognized way to have the voice of people legitimately heard.When it became obvious that a significant number of Scottish people were interested in a referendum on Scottish independence, the governments in London and in Edinburgh signed the Edinburgh agreement in February 2013 allowing the Scottish government the authority to pass legislation to hold a referendum. This they did in November 2013, setting the election date for September 2014.An elections commission was established to oversee the vote, the proper wording was agreed upon, voting procedures established, and all sides were given the opportunity to present their views and campaign on behalf of their position.Both Britain and Scotland agreed to abide by a majority vote. Eighty-five percent of Scots turned out to vote.That is how a proper referendum, reflecting the true will of the people, is carried out.Although the Russian ‘referendum’ in Ukrainian Crimea was carried out in the same year as the Scottish referendum, none of those norms were followed.The referendum in Crimea violated Ukrainian, Crimean, and Russian constitutions. It was carried out against the will of the governing nation of Crimea by an invading foreign power.On Feb. 27, 2014 the Supreme Council of Crimea voted to hold a referendum on the status of Crimea on May 25.Maybe.Supposedly 64 ministers voted for this referendum, but as the Crimean parliament was under armed siege it was impossible to discover who these 64 ministers were or even if they voted at all.The referendum was set for May 25, then changed to March 1, then changed again to March 30.The referendum was eventually held March 16.Before any referendum took place, forces in Sevastopol declared themselves part of Russia on March 6.On March 11 the Crimean Parliament, under Russian control, declared itself independent from Ukraine.At this point no referendum had yet occurred.Meanwhile, the now meaningless fake referendum was rendered even more of a joke by the two choices:Choice 1: Do you support the reunification of Crimea with Russia with all the rights of the federal subject of the Russian Federation?Choice 2: Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?Since the never-adopted, invalid ’92 constitution was proposed along with a declaration of independence, BOTH choices were a vote for Crimean independence from Ukraine.In addition:There was no campaign in which both sides were heard.Ukrainian news organizations were seized.No international organizations oversaw the “referendum.”Tatar people of Ukrainian Crimea boycotted the “referendum.”The international community condemned the “referendum” as illegal (100–11 in the UN).(The “choice” Crimeans were given)Most importantly, Ukraine did not authorize this “referendum.” Crimea was Ukrainian territory from 1990 to 2014, which even Russia recognizes. Yet, Crimea was forcibly taken from Ukraine and a “referendum” was held in which Ukraine had absolutely no say.Would Russia allow Germany to forcibly take possession of the once German, now Russian, city of Kaliningrad and force a referendum on it re-joining Germany?At the time, the Kremlin claimed 97% of Crimeans voted for annexation, with 83% of voters turning out. However, Putin’s own Russian Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights contradicted that claim when they published the actual results that only 30% of people voted, about half choosing annexation, which means only about 15% of Crimeans voted in favor of annexation.No one can talk about the will of the Crimean people because not all the people of Crimea were allowed to express their will. Nor were the people of the rest of Ukraine, as is required in the Ukrainian constitution. Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution states territorial changes must be approved by a nationwide referendum.(Putin’s “Little Green Men”)Nor does international law allow territory to be annexed simply because the people who happen to be living there today want to leave. If that were the case, then any geographically cohesive group could vote on independence, including the Basques from Spain and France, the Kurds from Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, or even the Chechens from Russia.Putin, with the support of the Russian people, violated the Russian constitution, the Ukrainian constitution, bilateral and international agreements, and the most fundamental principles on international law.CONCLUSIONSCrimea has not always been Russian. In fact, it has only been Russian for about 5% of its history.Crimea was recognized by the Kremlin as Ukrainian for 60 years, including by the Russian Federation under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.In annexing Ukrainian Crimea Russia violated international law, bilateral treaties with Ukraine, and both the Ukrainian and Russian constitutions.The forced, illegal referendum in Crimea did not follow any acceptable international standards for a referendum.Even this illegal sham referendum did not represent the majority of people in Crimea.The international community has overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukrainian Crimea and continues to impose sanctions against Moscow as a result of those illegal actions.

The first thing to understand about the Russian annexation of Ukrainian Crimea is that there is the Russian version of the truth and then there is the truth understood and accepted by the entire rest of the world.“Truth,” as David Mitchell wrote, “is singular. Its versions are mistruths.”When you see answers that bandy about terms like neo-nazi and fascist to describe the democratically, internationally recognized government of democratic Ukraine, you can safely assume you are being treated to Russian propaganda from the Internet Research Agency. Do not be confused if you see western names or countries of origin as part of the writers’ profiles. It is the tiresome work of Putin’s Olgino trolls, who are willing to prostitute themselves for a handful of rubles.I’ll stick to verifiable, fact-based statements of truth, presented without the colorful editorializing that accompanies so many of the Russian versions presented here. So that you may judge for yourself I have provided numerous links to support statements of fact.Let’s begin with history, since many apologists for the Russian annexation like to claim Crimea is, and always has been, Russian.WHO HAS A HISTORICAL CLAIM TO CRIMEA?Crimea was indeed part of the Russian Imperial state for 135 years, from 1783 until 1918. However, it was controlled by the Greek Byzantine Empire for 650 years, by the Mongols for 200 years, and Ottoman Turkey for 340 years. If one were to make a case based solely on who has “always” owned Crimea, then present day Turkey would have the stronger argument.In the 20th century, Crimea came under the control of Soviet Russia for 32 years, from 1922 until it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. Since the breakup of the USSR in 1991, Crimea has been part of Ukraine, meaning that for the 60 years prior to the Russian annexation, every country in the world, including the Russian Federation under president Vladimir Putin, recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine.History, as we can see, does not provide a conclusive answer to the present day status of Crimea. So, what does international law, national constitutions, and bi-lateral and international treaties tell us?WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO CRIMEA?In 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union authorized the following decree,On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.Crimea became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic for the last 37 years of the USSR.When the Soviet Union broke up Crimea became an autonomous republic within Ukraine. In 1998, the constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established Crimea's status and authority within Ukraine.Therefore, the status of Crimea as Ukrainian was a recognized fact in the Soviet Union for 37 years, and by the Russian Federation for 23 years. For 60 years the leadership in the Kremlin, including Vladimir Putin, acknowledged Ukrainian Crimea. Moscow could have easily taken Crimea at any time over those six decades but did not.The annexation even violated the Russian Constitution. It states, in Chapter 1, Article 4(2), for any state to be accepted into the Russian Federation, there must be mutual consent of Russia and the other state. Ukraine obviously did not give that consent.Article 6(1) of the Russian Federal Constitution also requires that the foreign state be the “initiator of a proposal concerning acceptance in the Russian Federation as a new subject of a foreign State or part thereof” in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Federal Constitutional Law. It goes without saying that Ukraine did not initiate a request for Crimea to join the Russian Federation.Even as late as 2014, the year of the Russian military takeover of Ukrainian Crimea, it was commonly accepted in Russia that Crimea was, indeed, Ukrainian. Please note on this Russian language, Russian produced map from 2014 that Crimea is not listed as Russian or even as disputed, but is correctly identified as part of Ukraine (far left of map).Every Russian school child in 2014 understood that Crimea was Ukrainian.In annexing Ukrainian Crimea Putin also violated Russian and Soviet international treaties, as well as agreements with Ukraine. Annexing Crimea was a violation of 80 different international agreements and 407 bilateral agreements with Ukraine, all of which Russia entered into voluntarily. The number of violations are too numerous to list here, but let’s just look at a representative sample.Both Soviet Russia and Ukraine are founding signatories of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits threats or use of force against another state.After the Russian annexation, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and calling the referendum that led to Russia’s annexation of its Crimean Peninsula illegal. One hundred nations supported the resolution. Only 11 opposed it.This isn’t a minor technicality involving some convoluted legal agreement. Russia’s annexation is a violation of the fundamental cornerstone of international law.Finally, the annexation violated bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Russia. After the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. the two countries signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation; the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances; the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine; as well as of the Agreement between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Use of Airspace of Ukraine and of Airspace Over the Black Sea, and many more bilateral agreements.All these agreements, freely entered into by Russia, affirmed that Crimea is Ukrainian.According to the 1997 Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty, both countries agreed to "respect each other's territorial integrity, and confirm the inviolability of the borders existing between them."Existing borders that included Ukrainian Crimea.From the Budapest memorandum, signed by Russia in 1994:1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.The Budapest Memorandum is only one of the many agreements and treaties with Ukraine which Russia has broken by illegally annexing the Crimean peninsula and occupying part of Ukraine’s Donbass region. In 1997 both countries signed the Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty. At the signing ceremony in Kyiv the Russian president said, “I vow at this sacred place, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, that the treaty that we sign today will be fulfilled…We respect and honor the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”Crimea was a part of Ukraine when all those agreements were signed. Nowhere did Russia ask for an addendum or wording in the many treaties and agreements it signed saying, “except Crimea.”WAS THE 2014 REFERENDUM FREE, FAIR, AND LEGAL?There is an internationally recognized way to have the voice of people legitimately heard.When it became obvious that a significant number of Scottish people were interested in a referendum on Scottish independence, the governments in London and in Edinburgh signed the Edinburgh agreement in February 2013 allowing the Scottish government the authority to pass legislation to hold a referendum. This they did in November 2013, setting the election date for September 2014.An elections commission was established to oversee the vote, the proper wording was agreed upon, voting procedures established, and all sides were given the opportunity to present their views and campaign on behalf of their position.Both Britain and Scotland agreed to abide by a majority vote. Eighty-five percent of Scots turned out to vote.That is how a proper referendum, reflecting the true will of the people, is carried out.Although the Russian ‘referendum’ in Ukrainian Crimea was carried out in the same year as the Scottish referendum, none of those norms were followed.The referendum in Crimea violated Ukrainian, Crimean, and Russian constitutions. It was carried out against the will of the governing nation of Crimea by an invading foreign power.On Feb. 27, 2014 the Supreme Council of Crimea voted to hold a referendum on the status of Crimea on May 25.Maybe.Supposedly 64 ministers voted for this referendum, but as the Crimean parliament was under armed siege it was impossible to discover who these 64 ministers were or even if they voted at all.The referendum was set for May 25, then changed to March 1, then changed again to March 30.The referendum was eventually held March 16.Before any referendum took place, forces in Sevastopol declared themselves part of Russia on March 6.On March 11 the Crimean Parliament, under Russian control, declared itself independent from Ukraine.At this point no referendum had yet occurred.Meanwhile, the now meaningless fake referendum was rendered even more of a joke by the two choices:Choice 1: Do you support the reunification of Crimea with Russia with all the rights of the federal subject of the Russian Federation?Choice 2: Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?Since the never-adopted invalid ’92 constitution was proposed along with a declaration of independence, BOTH choices were a vote for Crimean independence from Ukraine.In addition:There was no campaign in which both sides were heard.Ukrainian news organizations were seized.No international organizations oversaw the “referendum.”Tatar people of Ukrainian Crimea boycotted the “referendum.”The international community condemned the “referendum” as illegal (100–11 in the UN).(The “choice” Crimeans were given)Most importantly, Ukraine did not authorize this “referendum.” Crimea was Ukrainian territory from 1990 to 2014, which even Russia recognizes. Yet, Crimea was forcibly taken from Ukraine and a “referendum” was held in which Ukraine had absolutely no say.Would Russia allow Germany to forcibly take possession of the once German, now Russian, city of Kaliningrad and force a referendum on it re-joining Germany?At the time, the Kremlin claimed 97% of Crimeans voted for annexation, with 83% of voters turning out. However, Putin’s own Russian Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights contradicted that claim when they published the actual results that only 30% of people voted, about half choosing annexation, which means only about 15% of Crimeans voted in favor of annexation.No one can talk about the will of the Crimean people because not all the people of Crimea were allowed to express their will. Nor were the people of the rest of Ukraine, as is required in the Ukrainian constitution. Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution states territorial changes must be approved by a nationwide referendum.(Putin’s “Little Green Men”)Nor does international law allow territory to be annexed simply because the people who happen to be living there today want to leave. If that were the case, then any geographically cohesive group could vote on independence, including the Basques from Spain and France, the Kurds from Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, or even the Chechens from Russia.Putin, with the support of the Russian people, violated the Russian constitution, the Ukrainian constitution, bilateral and international agreements, and the most fundamental principles on international law.CONCLUSIONSCrimea has not always been Russian.Crimea was recognized by the Kremlin as Ukrainian for 60 years, including by the Russian Federation under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.In annexing Ukrainian Crimea Russia violated international law, bilateral treaties with Ukraine, and both the Ukrainian and Russian constitutions.The forced, illegal referendum in Crimea did not follow any acceptable international standards for a referendum.Even this illegal sham referendum did not represent the majority of people in Crimea.The international community has overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukrainian Crimea and continues to impose sanctions against Moscow as a result of those illegal actions.