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 ...
Failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline resulted in monetary penalties. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 137(3) compliance requirements.
The authority penalized the company for not maintaining a valid registered office address. It held that such failure constitutes a continuing statutory default attracting daily penalties.
The authority penalized the managing director for wrongly declaring CSR as not applicable in financial filings. It held that signatories are responsible for accuracy, even in inadvertent errors.
Failure to maintain a functional registered office led to penalties on the company and its directors. The ruling stresses that companies must always ensure accessibility for official communications.
The company argued that exceptional circumstances prevented compliance. The ROC rejected the plea as defaults continued even after directors were acquitted. The ruling highlights that prolonged non-compliance cannot be excused.
The company argued that exceptional circumstances prevented compliance. The ROC rejected this defense as defaults continued even after directors were acquitted. The ruling highlights that temporary hardship does not excuse prolonged non-compliance.
The authority penalized the company for failing to maintain properly numbered minutes. It held that even clerical errors in statutory records attract penalties.
Company held only three Board Meetings in a year, violating statutory norms. Officers were penalized individually for non-compliance with meeting requirements.
The issue involved obtaining more than one DIN in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty, recognizing the error as unintentional and self-reported.
The issue involved duplication of DIN due to ignorance during incorporation. The authority imposed penalty despite voluntary disclosure, reinforcing strict compliance requirements.
