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 explain auditor-noted violations of Nidhi Rules resulted in penalties on the company and directors. The order reinforces strict disclosure duties under company law.
The order confirms that filing incorrect financial statements triggers penalties even if errors are later admitted and rectified. Post-filing administrative correction does not erase liability under the Companies Act.
Authorities held that failure to display a complete registered office address violated Section 12(3)(a) of the Companies Act. The case reinforces that even procedural lapses can attract the maximum statutory penalty if left unrectified.
The regulator held that partial disclosure in balance sheet notes is insufficient under section 134. Listed companies must make clear and complete related party disclosures.
The regulator held that Annual Reports are official publications mandatorily requiring CIN disclosure. Repeated non-compliance led to the maximum penalty on both the company and its officers.
ROC Chennai ruled that boards must explain every audit qualification or adverse remark. Non-compliance resulted in penalties under the Companies Act.
ROC Chennai held that failure to disclose ICC compliance in the Board’s Report violates Section 134. The company and defaulting directors were penalised accordingly.
The registrar penalised a company for failing to fill a woman director vacancy within the statutory timeline. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with board composition norms.
The registrar penalised a company and its directors for failing to disclose a director’s regularisation in the annual return. The key takeaway is that even clerical omissions attract penalties under the residuary provision.
The registrar imposed penalties for a 212-day delay in filing Form MGT-14. Subsequent compliance did not absolve liability under Section 117(2).
