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 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 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 ...
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.
The case involved allotment of shares before complete payment and issues with fund traceability. The authority held it as non-compliance and imposed penalties, treating it as a technical breach.
Failure to disclose registered valuer details in explanatory statements led to penalties under Section 450. Each instance was treated as a separate violation, resulting in significant cumulative penalties.
The authority imposed a penalty on the director for incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4. It held that the signatory is responsible for accuracy of filings, even if the error was inadvertent.
The authority ruled that failure to mention CIN on documents was not a continuing offence. Penalty was limited to specific instances, significantly reducing liability.
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties after finding incomplete filing of PAS-3 details. The ruling confirms that such violations attract general penalty under Section 450 when no specific penalty exists.
Failure to disclose allottee occupation and complete details in PAS-3 resulted in penalties. The case highlights the importance of accurate and complete statutory filings.
Failure to disclose complete allottee details in PAS-3 attracted penalties under Section 450. The order highlights the importance of accurate reporting in securities allotment.
The case examined whether Section 42 was violated in a private placement. The authority ruled there was no substantive breach and replaced the penalty with a nominal fine for a procedural lapse.
The case addressed delayed filing of return of allotment under Section 42(9). The authority reduced the penalty after recognizing a government circular that excluded part of the delay period.
