Company Law : This FAQ examines the statutory authorities empowered to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting under the Companies Act, 2013. I...
Company Law : The 2025 amendment replaces annual DIR-3 KYC filings with a triennial compliance framework. Directors now need to file KYC once ev...
Company Law : The article explains when private companies can rely on MCA exemptions to borrow through board approval alone. It highlights the b...
Company Law : The article explains how Audit Committee, Board, and shareholder approvals apply to related party transactions under corporate law...
Company Law : The scheme provides a last opportunity for defaulting companies to file pending returns and financial statements with reduced pena...
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 : The MCA has amended the valuation rules to require Registered Valuer Organisations to maintain a minimum paid-up capital of ₹25 ...
Company Law : The Registrar of Companies penalized the company and its authorized signatory after an incorrect document was attached with Form A...
Company Law : MCA amends Schedule VII of the Companies Act to include subscription to zero coupon zero principal instruments on Social Stock Exc...
Company Law : MCA has amended the CSR Rules to recognize zero coupon zero principal instruments issued by Social Stock Exchange-listed NPOs. The...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the ...
The case examined whether occupation details can be omitted when allottees lack occupation. The authority rejected this interpretation and imposed penalties for non-compliance. The decision clarifies that statutory forms must be filled completely and accurately.
The issue involved non-filing of mandatory Form MGT-14 for board resolutions approving financial statements. The authority held that failure to comply with Sections 117 and 179 constitutes a continuing default attracting penalties.
A director was penalized for holding two DINs in violation of statutory provisions. The key takeaway is that even inadvertent non-compliance attracts strict penalties under company law.
The company failed to conduct the required number of board meetings and exceeded statutory time gaps. The key takeaway is that strict compliance with board meeting norms is mandatory.
Filing incorrect details in statutory forms attracts penalties even if later corrected. The key takeaway is that rectification does not erase liability for the original default.
The case involved non-maintenance of a functional registered office, evidenced by undelivered official communication. The authority imposed penalties, highlighting strict compliance with Section 12 requirements.
The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, holding that duration of default justifies financial consequences despite bona fide intent.
This case examines whether an unintentional duplicate DIN attracts penalties under company law. The authority held that liability is strict, imposing a ₹50,000 penalty despite acknowledging bona fide conduct.
The scheme provides a last opportunity for defaulting companies to file pending returns and financial statements with reduced penalties. It emphasizes that failure to comply within the window may lead to strict regulatory action, including strike-off.
ROC Mumbai penalized the authorized signatory for incorrect AOC-4 filing where consolidated financial statements were omitted. The ruling reinforces accountability for accuracy in e-form certifications under company law.
