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 imposed penalties for delayed filing of Form MR-1 beyond the 60-day limit. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements for director appointments.
The ROC penalized the company for filing board resolutions after the 30-day limit. It held that statutory timelines under the Companies Act are mandatory and cannot be ignored.
The company relied on old resolutions for ongoing related party transactions. The authority held that fresh approvals are mandatory, imposing penalties for non-compliance.
The company continued related party transactions based on old approvals. The authority held that fresh approvals are mandatory, leading to penalties for non-compliance.
The issue involved non-compliance with approval requirements for related party transactions. The authority held that absence of Board resolution violates Section 188. The key takeaway is that proper approvals are mandatory for such transactions.
The issue involved non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a Company Secretary. The authority imposed penalties for violation of Section 203. The takeaway is that eligible companies must appoint key managerial personnel without exception.
The issue involved non-compliance with mandatory internal auditor appointment requirements. The authority imposed penalties as the company exceeded the turnover threshold but failed to comply. The takeaway is that audit requirements are strictly enforced.
The ROC imposed penalties on directors for not maintaining the mandatory register of members. The key takeaway is that statutory registers must be maintained at all times. Non-compliance attracts fixed penalties.
The case addresses non-disclosure of directors’ interests in related entities. Authorities imposed penalties, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 184 disclosure requirements.
The authority penalized directors for entering into non-cash transactions without prior approval through a special resolution. It reinforces that shareholder consent is mandatory for such arrangements under Section 192.
