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 Kolkata imposed penalties for failure to appoint the mandatory two Independent Directors within the prescribed timeline under Section 149. The order clarifies that delayed compliance after conversion into a public company invites monetary penalty under Section 172.
In a case involving delayed filing of annual returns for FY 2013–14, the ROC declined to impose penalty under Section 454. The order clarified that pre-2018 defaults fall under the fine regime, not the penalty regime, leaving compounding as the appropriate remedy.
The Registrar held that delayed filing of financial statements for FY 2013–14 occurred before decriminalisation and falls under the fine regime. Adjudication under Section 454 was declined, with liberty to seek compounding.
The Registrar of Companies penalised the company and its directors for non-compliance with Section 12 after official communication was returned undelivered. The violation was treated as a one-time offence under Section 12(8).
The adjudicating authority held that filing an e-Form with incorrect particulars attracts penalty under Section 450. Administrative rectification does not wipe out the completed contravention.
The ROC held that filing AOC-4 with incorrect company status details constitutes a violation of Rule 8(3). Rectification through GNL-1 does not eliminate liability, and penalties were imposed under Section 450.
Filing incorrect AGM date and due date in Form AOC-4 triggered adjudication proceedings under Section 454. The authority emphasized that MCA filings are public records relied upon by regulators and stakeholders. Responsibility for accuracy rests with the authorised signatory, who was held personally liable.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a Whole-time Director appointment was made effective before passing the Board resolution. The five-day contravention triggered action under Section 450.
The Registrar held that appointing a CFO with retrospective effect without a prior Board resolution violates Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013. Penalty was imposed under Section 450 as no specific punishment is prescribed for the default.
The authority found that approving financial statements before obtaining the Secretarial Audit Report contravened statutory requirements. A monetary penalty was imposed with compliance directions.
