Company Law : The Tribunal held that its wide powers under Sections 241-242 and Rule 11 cannot override the mandatory conditions prescribed unde...
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 : 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 : MCA notifies the New Development Bank under Section 2(11)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, specifying it as a body corporate for th...
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 ...
MCA notifies the New Development Bank under Section 2(11)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, specifying it as a body corporate for the Act’s purposes.
The Tribunal held that its wide powers under Sections 241-242 and Rule 11 cannot override the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 55 for redemption of preference shares. The ruling confirms that equitable jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass statutory safeguards.
The issue concerns the statutory framework governing the appointment of Managing Directors under the Companies Act, 2013. The guidance clarifies that strict adherence to eligibility criteria, approvals, and filing requirements is necessary to ensure a valid appointment.
The issue was whether bank bill discounting facilities require disclosure in Form DPT-3. It was clarified that only amounts outstanding as of 31 March must be reported as exempted borrowings, making the year-end balance sheet the determining factor.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are responsible for ensuring accuracy in statutory MCA filings, even where mistakes are inadvertent.
ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The order reiterates that directors cannot apply for or retain multiple DINs, irrespective of intent.
ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates that authorized signatories are accountable for the accuracy of MCA filings, even when errors are inadvertent.
The adjudicating authority held that an unlisted public company violated Section 29 by continuing to issue and transfer shares in physical form without ISIN registration, resulting in substantial penalties.
The order emphasizes that delayed filing may regularize compliance but does not extinguish the offence committed during the period of default. Penalties remain payable for the duration of the continuing contravention.
The ROC held that filing Form PAS-6 after the statutory deadline does not erase the period of default. The company and its directors remained liable for penalties until the date compliance was actually achieved.
