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 the company for submitting incomplete and inconsistent member data under Rule 14(6). It held that technical issues or pending approvals do not justify defective statutory disclosures, reinforcing strict compliance standards.
The authority penalized the company for failing to file return of allotment under Section 39(4), rejecting the argument of MCA portal issues. The key takeaway is that technical difficulties do not excuse statutory non-compliance.
The authority imposed penalty for failure to file SH-7 after increasing authorised capital. The key takeaway is that statutory filings cannot be skipped even due to technical issues.
Failure to file financial statements and respond to notices resulted in an ex-parte penalty order. The case highlights strict enforcement of compliance and consequences of non-appearance before authorities.
Company failed to respond to show cause and hearing notices issued by the ROC. The authority proceeded ex-parte and imposed penalties. The ruling highlights that non-participation does not prevent enforcement action.
Non-adherence to Secretarial Standard-2 in maintaining AGM minutes resulted in penalties on the company and its officers. The authority rejected claims of procedural lapses being minor or inadvertent. The case emphasizes the binding nature of secretarial standards under company law.
The authority penalized incorrect classification of shareholders in Form MGT-7A. It held that errors in statutory filings attract liability even if later corrected.
Repeated failure to respond to MCA notices resulted in penalties and an ex-parte order. The authority emphasized accountability for statutory filing defaults. The case serves as a cautionary example of the consequences of regulatory non-engagement.
The company was denied reduced penalties as it did not qualify under the definition of a small company. Full penalties were imposed for failure to file financial statements on time. The ruling clarifies the limited applicability of leniency provisions under the Companies Act.
The issue involved failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline. The ROC imposed penalties on both the company and its director. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of statutory filing requirements under the Companies Act.
