This guide explains the complete legal procedure for transferring a registered office from one State to another under the Companies Act, 2013. The key takeaway is that shareholder approval and Regional Director consent are mandatory for interstate shifting.
SEBI has proposed a uniform framework for fixing price bands and pre-open base prices for scrips listed on multiple exchanges. The move seeks to address price divergence caused by non-trading on one or more exchanges.
GSTAT Mumbai Bench has officially commenced functioning, making it mandatory for taxpayers within its jurisdiction to file appeals before the Tribunal. The notice outlines filing procedures, scrutiny requirements, and applicable procedural rules.
ROC Bangalore found a violation of Section 12 after a statutory notice could not be served at the companys registered office. The company and its directors admitted the default and accepted the penalties.
Penalties were imposed not only on the company but also on its officers in default for delayed filing of the return of allotment. The ruling emphasizes directors’ responsibility in ensuring adherence to corporate compliance requirements.
ROC Bangalore held that converting loans into equity without obtaining prior approval under Section 62(3) violates the Companies Act. Such transactions must comply with the appropriate share issuance provisions.
The order arose from the allotment of shares against loans received from shareholders and directors without satisfying the conditions prescribed under Section 62(3). The ruling reiterates that post-facto adjustments cannot substitute mandatory corporate approvals.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are an integral component of criminal investigation and cannot ordinarily be quashed. However, it issued safeguards to protect the petitioner’s right to seek legal remedies.
The Tribunal held that an incomplete document recovered from an employee’s laptop could not justify an addition under Section 69 without supporting evidence. The absence of cross-examination and independent verification weighed against the Revenue.
The ROC Bangalore penalised a company and its directors after finding that the next Board Meeting was convened 87 days beyond the statutory limit under Section 173(1). The company had voluntarily admitted the default through a suo motu application.
