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 heavy penalty for failing to appoint a Company Secretary within six months. The ruling stresses strict adherence to Section 203 timelines.
The authority penalized the company for failing to hold the required fourth Board Meeting. It clarified that absence of a specific penalty provision attracts Section 450 as a residual penalty.
The adjudicating authority penalized a company for not maintaining the required number of directors liable to retire by rotation. The violation continued for over 700 days before being rectified.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to file the board resolution within the prescribed 30-day period violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to file the board resolution within 30 days violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. As a result, the company and its directors were penalized.
The ROC imposed the maximum statutory penalty after the company failed to file Form MGT-14 for the board resolution approving financial statements. Non-compliance with Section 117 led to penalties on both the company and its directors.
ROC Mumbai penalised the authorized signatory after financial statements were mistakenly filed in Form AOC-4 instead of AOC-4 XBRL. The order reiterates that correct statutory forms must be used for compliance filings.
ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after a company incorrectly declared that CSR provisions were not applicable while filing AOC-4 XBRL. The order holds the authorized signatory responsible for accuracy of e-forms.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for incorrect financial information reported in the AOC-4 XBRL filing. The order emphasizes that authorized signatories are responsible for the accuracy of e-forms filed with MCA.
The adjudicating authority held that incorrect information in Form AOC-4 XBRL violated Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Penalties were imposed on the director and the certifying CA responsible for the filing.
