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 penalized a company for filing unsigned financial statements, holding it in violation of statutory requirements. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to director authentication obligations under company law.
Failure to sign financial statements led to penalties under Section 134(8). The order highlights strict compliance requirements and limited relief for small companies.
The ROC penalized the company for reporting an incorrect AGM date in its financial filing. The ruling confirms that even inadvertent errors in statutory forms attract penalties.
Authorities held that correcting a defective financial statement filing does not remove penalty liability. The ruling reinforces strict accountability for accuracy in MCA filings.
Authorities held that filing incorrect statutory forms attracts penalty even if later correction is sought. The ruling reinforces that rectification does not erase liability for defective filings under company law.
The initiative addresses inefficiencies in the current filing system and proposes consolidation and automation. It highlights a shift toward simplified, user-friendly compliance.
The ROC penalized the company for filing incorrect AGM details in AOC-4 despite claiming it was inadvertent. The ruling confirms that even minor errors in statutory filings attract penalties.
The ROC penalized the company for reporting the wrong AGM date in two statutory filings. The ruling confirms that even inadvertent errors in multiple forms attract cumulative penalties.
The authority held that securities cannot be allotted before dematerialising directors’ shareholding. A penalty was imposed despite subsequent rectification.
The authority penalized the company for issuing shares below the valuer-determined price, even though the shortfall was later recovered with interest. Rectification did not absolve the initial violation.
