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 ...
The authority found non-compliance with Section 42(6) due to absence of a separate bank account. It held that such violation attracts penalty under Section 42(10).
Omission of required attachments in annual return filing resulted in penalties under Section 450. The decision stresses the importance of accurate and complete filings.
Failure to attach share transfer details in the annual return resulted in penalties under the residuary provision. The ruling highlights that even minor filing omissions can trigger statutory penalties.
Failure to file the one-time DPT-3 return within the prescribed timeline resulted in penalties under Section 450. The authority held that delayed compliance, even if later rectified, constitutes a violation. The case highlights strict adherence to deposit reporting requirements.
The company admitted that omission of the resolution attachment was unintentional. However, the adjudicating authority still imposed penalties under Section 450. The ruling confirms that intent does not negate statutory compliance obligations.
A delayed filing of a special resolution beyond the statutory deadline resulted in penalties despite claims of bona fide error. The ruling highlights strict compliance obligations under the Companies Act.
Failure to maintain a separate bank account for private placement led to penalties equal to the funds raised. The ruling clarifies strict compliance under Section 42(6) and limits penalty to the lower of ₹2 crore or the amount raised.
Delay in filing Form MGT-14 beyond statutory timelines led to penalties on the company and its directors. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 117 compliance requirements.
The case involved non-compliance with Section 42 requirements during a private placement. The authority imposed maximum penalties, stressing that designated accounts must meet strict statutory standards.
The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with Section 173(1).
