Company Law India: Read latest Company law news & updates, acts, circular, notifications & articles issued by MCA amendment in companies Act 2013. Article on Loans Company formation XBRL, Schedule VI IFRS.
Company Law : One Person Companies (OPCs) need to record annual returns to remain compliant with legal requirements. However, many business owne...
Company Law : The process of striking off a private limited company refers to the removal of a company’s name from the Register of Compani...
Company Law : Appointment of other officer such as CTO, COO, and CMO as Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) under Companies Act, 2013 – Key Con...
Company Law : Private Limited Companies in India ought to observe annual filing necessities to keep transparency and prison standing. This artic...
Company Law : Cost audit and cost records serve as essential tools for achieving these objectives, enabling companies to monitor, control, an...
Company Law : NFRA's 2023 inspection of Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP finds improvements but notes ongoing issues in key audit areas....
Company Law : NFRA highlights auditor responsibilities in related party transactions, emphasizing compliance with Ind AS 24, SEBI regulations, a...
Company Law : NFRA outlines audit strategy and planning requirements, emphasizing auditor communication with audit committees and compliance wit...
Company Law : NFRA's 2023 inspection of Walker Chandiok & Co. LLP reveals ongoing issues in independence and audit procedures....
Company Law : NFRA's 2023 inspection of SRBC & Co. LLP highlights audit quality issues, independence concerns, and compliance with auditing stan...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that beneficiary under the personal guarantee is fully entitled to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Proces...
Company Law : When the corporate debtor failed to pay the outstanding power obligation, appellant subsequently cut off the electrical service. O...
Company Law : The plain reading of the above provisions of Section 60(5)(c) clearly indicates that the NCLT is empowered to adjudicate any quest...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi quashes CIRP against Alcuris Healthcare, ruling profit-sharing disputes do not constitute operational debt under IBC. ...
Company Law : NCLAT dismisses appeals in Saturn Ventures case, upholding RP’s findings on asset ownership and rejecting fraudulent transaction...
Company Law : Summary of the appeal by Aaryak Jewellery Pvt Ltd against penalties under Sections 42, 55, and 62 of Companies Act, 2013. Decision...
Company Law : River Mobility Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a ₹3L penalty for delayed share certificate issuance. ITAT reduced it to ₹1L. Read t...
Company Law : The appeal by Maptech Poly Products Pvt Ltd against a penalty for non-maintenance of its registered office was dismissed by the Re...
Company Law : Vishnupriya Hotels' appeal led to a penalty reduction for non-compliance with Section 149(3) of the Companies Act. The company pai...
Company Law : Vishnupriya Hotels appealed against CSR non-compliance penalties. The Regional Director reduced the fine after reviewing submissio...
Cancellation or Deactivation of DIN.- The Central Government or Regional Director (Northern Region), Noida or any officer authorised by the Regional Director, upon being satisfied on verification of particulars of proof attached with the application received from any person seeking cancellation or deactivation of DIN, in case –
Power to relax — Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing . and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.
It is observed from the Budget 2013-14 authorizes Union Govt. to raise Rs. 50,000 crores (Tax Free Bonds). These bonds carry a lower rate of interest, currently in the range of 6.75% to 7.50% which is tax free under section 10(15) (iv)(h) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such bonds were also provided for in Budget 2012-13, but the response had been poor due to restrictions under section 372A(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.
In its reply dated 19th June 2012 to the notice dated 26th May 2012 the Respondent has denied any liability whatsoever. It is, inter alia, stated in the reply sent by the Respondent through its counsel that “In the facts and circumstances, please advise your client that my client is not liable to pay any sum of US$ 350,000 or any other amount under the Agreement dated 18.05.2008 as alleged.
It is urged by PSPC, on the strength of the decision in Rajasthan Housing Board v. Krishna Kumari [2005] 13 SCC 151, that since the electricity connection was restored to the factory premises in terms of the order dated 18th December 2008 of the Court, the dues of PSPC ought to be directed to be paid straightway by CBL and PSPC should not be relegated to the OL for its dues. The above submission is untenable for more than one reason.
A plain reading of the provisions of Section 188 makes it amply clear that a member who intends getting his proposed resolutions included for circulation to members must have not less than one twentieth of the total voting power of all the members at the date of the requisition or must be not less than 100 members in number to exercise such a right.
Regard being had to the statement of objections the answer to the question as to whether the bearings supplied by the petitioner to the respondent were, in fact, defective or not being a pure question of fact requires an adjudication after a trial. Hence the defence is not a moonshine defence. Since a triable issue has arisen petitioner cannot but be relegated to the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.
No workmen or employee of the company had appeared to resist the order of winding up. The conduct of those in management of the company in fraudulently selling off assets conservatively estimated at Rs. 2,300 crore makes it just and equitable for the company to be wound up. The company had been unable to show any prospects of it carrying on any business in the near or the distant future. The company’s inability to pay its debts is established and no ground is shown for the company court to exercise its discretion to not wind up the company despite its obvious insolvency.
In the present case, the foundation is the Consultancy Agreement between the parties, where it was agreed, as per the Petitioner, that the Petitioner would get a guaranteed fee of Rs. 50 lacs, which was payable on a monthly basis at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per month, at least for 12 months, or at the time when the investment size is achieved and/or if the agreement is revoked at Samira’s violation, whichever is earlier, the outstanding balance will be paid as a lump sum. As per the Petitioner, after 12 months from the date of agreement i.e. 22.10.2007, apart from lump sum amount of Rs. 5 lacs, the amount claimed, according to this agreement, was outstanding. This clause itself cannot be read in isolation. The revised clause and the obligation on the part of the Petitioner as referred in other part of the Agreement, just cannot be overlooked. There are no averments to show that they have complied with their part in full and, therefore, they are entitled to claim this full consultancy guaranteed amount as agreed. The Respondent/company in the affidavit has denied and made a positive statement that there were no full compliances by the Petitioner.
After the company petition before the Bombay High Court was withdrawn on 11th November, 2011, notice under section 434(1)(a) was issued on 15th December, 2011 at the registered office of the respondent company. Section 434(1)(a) requires issue of 21 days notice for deeming fiction created by the provision to apply. However, section 434(1)(a) cannot be strictly equated with mandatory statutory notice like the one required under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when a suit is to be filed against the Government. For initiating civil proceedings for recovery of a debt, no notice under section 434(1)(a) is required to be issued.
