Company Law : The issue concerns the statutory framework governing the appointment of Managing Directors under the Companies Act, 2013. The guid...
Company Law : The issue was whether bank bill discounting facilities require disclosure in Form DPT-3. It was clarified that only amounts outsta...
Company Law : The analysis explains the statutory mechanism under Section 168(3) for restoring a functioning Board when all directors resign or ...
Company Law : The FAQ clarifies that the Companies Act, 2013 does not restrict adjournment of a duly convened and commenced AGM. An adjourned AG...
Company Law : This FAQ examines the statutory authorities empowered to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting under the Companies Act, 2013. I...
Company Law : The MCA has widened CSR eligibility by recognizing subscriptions to Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments as a valid CSR activity...
Company Law : The initiative addresses inefficiencies in the current filing system and proposes consolidation and automation. It highlights a sh...
Company Law : NFRA found major deficiencies in audit documentation and archival practices. The report highlights the need for stronger controls ...
Company Law : The inspection report highlights deficiencies in audit documentation, independence monitoring and compliance with auditing standar...
Company Law : The regulator found that the audit firm lacked an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure firmwide independence policies were pro...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : That the period of lockdown ordered by the Central Government and the State Governments including the period as may be extended ei...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are resp...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates tha...
Company Law : The adjudicating authority held that an unlisted public company violated Section 29 by continuing to issue and transfer shares in ...
Company Law : The order emphasizes that delayed filing may regularize compliance but does not extinguish the offence committed during the period...
ROC Mumbai imposed penalties on a listed company and its officers for failing to file Form MR-2 within the prescribed timeline for appointment of a non-resident Whole Time Director. The adjudicating authority held that the 878-day delay violated Rule 7(3) read with Sections 196 and 201 of the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai penalized directors for treating special business as ordinary business in an AGM notice to avoid mandatory explanatory disclosures. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 102 of the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai penalized a company and its directors for failing to maintain consecutively numbered pages in Board and General Meeting minutes books. The order highlights mandatory compliance with Secretarial Standard-1 under the Companies Act.
ROC Chandigarh penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of particulars relating to vacation of office of a disqualified director. The order highlights strict compliance obligations under Sections 170 and 172 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors for failing to appoint a Chief Financial Officer after crossing the prescribed paid-up capital threshold. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The ROC held that attaching an incorrect balance sheet while filing Form AOC-4 amounts to non-compliance under Section 137(1). The company and its directors were penalized for defective filing of financial statements.
ROC Patna imposed penalties after a company failed to prove that Board Meetings were held as required under Section 173(1). Absence of minutes and non-filing of MGT-7 became key reasons for the adjudication action.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its managing director after physical verification revealed that the registered office was not functioning at the recorded address. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC imposed penalties after a company incorrectly mentioned the financial year period while filing Form AOC-4 on the MCA portal. The ruling highlights the importance of accuracy in statutory electronic filings.
ROC Haryana penalized a company and its officers for filing e-Form MR-2 beyond the prescribed 90-day period after appointing a Managing Director. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 196 and Rule 7(3) of the Companies Act framework.
