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 ...
NFRA held that weak, undocumented communication between auditors and governance bodies violates auditing standards and governance duties, requiring structured two-way engagement.
ROC Chennai held that failure to include key disclosures in the Board’s Report violates Section 134. Directors were penalised for statutory non-compliance.
ROC Chennai held that omission of allottee occupation in the return of allotment violates Rule 12(2). The lapse attracted penalty under the residual provision of Section 450.
Non-furnishing of full allottee information resulted in rejection of statutory filings and imposition of penalty. The ruling reinforces strict disclosure norms for allotments.
ROC Chennai held that delayed filing of Board resolutions approving financial statements violates Section 117. The company and directors were penalised for prolonged non-compliance.
The registrar imposed the maximum penalty for delayed MSME Form I filings. Even belated compliance did not prevent monetary penalties.
Repeated delays in filing MSME returns resulted in penalties reaching the statutory cap. The decision highlights strict enforcement of MSME disclosure timelines and accountability of management.
Delays running into several months in filing MSME-1 resulted in penalties capped at ₹3 lakh. The ruling underscores that extended non-compliance will invite the highest statutory consequences.
MSME-1 filings delayed by over two years attracted the highest statutory penalties. The ruling signals strict enforcement where non-compliance is prolonged and repeated.
The regulator examined failure to hold the minimum number of Board meetings in a calendar year. It held that missing even one required meeting violates statutory governance norms and attracts penalty.
