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 ...
A mismatch in paid-up capital disclosure in the annual return led to penalty proceedings under Section 454. The decision emphasizes that compliance failures in MCA filings, even if unintentional, invite statutory penalties.
A company was penalized for incorrectly selecting its OPC/Small Company status in Form AOC-4. The adjudicating authority clarified that MCA records are statutory public documents and inaccuracies attract liability despite claims of clerical error. Rectification does not nullify the offence.
ROC Pune imposed a penalty after a typographical error led to incorrect AGM details in Form MGT-7A. Although the AGM was duly held, incorrect filing attracted liability under Section 450. The director was fined ₹5,000 considering the company’s small status.
The adjudicating officer found that holding multiple DINs contravened Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the director’s claim of inadvertence and voluntary surrender, a reduced penalty of 50% of the maximum was levied.
The ROC Chhattisgarh held that repeated return of official letters marked Not Known proved non-compliance with Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalised under Section 12(8) for failing to maintain a functional registered office.
The Registrar penalized the officer in default for failing to appoint the required number of independent directors within the prescribed timeline. The default continued until proper appointments were made.
The order held that signing financial statements during disqualification violated Section 134(1). The key takeaway is that such non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 134(8), even for small companies.
The order held that failure to file DIR-12 within 30 days of resignation violated Section 170(2). The key takeaway is that administrative vacancy does not excuse statutory filing delays.
The Registrar imposed a penalty for failure to appoint the required two independent directors within the prescribed three-month period. The default continued until full compliance was achieved.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a public company failed to appoint a woman director within the statutory six-month period. Though the default was later rectified, penalties were levied for the period of non-compliance under Section 172.
