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 ...
The order holds that utilisation of private placement money before allotment and filing of returns violates Section 42, attracting substantial penalties despite financial hardship claims.
The adjudicating authority held that delay in filing return of allotment attracts penalty under Section 42, but relief under Section 446B applies where the entity qualifies as a small company.
Unsigned financial statements uploaded with statutory filings were held non-compliant. Liability was fixed on the certifying director under the Companies Act.
Public and private companies in Bihar increasingly invest in CSR, with key districts receiving substantial social development funding under Section 135 of the Companies Act.
The 2025 IBC amendments aim to reduce delays in insolvency processes, improving corporate debt recovery timelines and strengthening the insolvency framework.
The ROC held that depositing interim dividend in a current account instead of a separate account violates section 123(4). Monetary penalties were imposed despite subsequent compliance.
The authority ruled that absence of a loan does not waive compliance obligations. Failure to intimate satisfaction of charge attracted mandatory penalties.
Regulatory authorities held that claiming compliance with accounting standards without actual adherence or explanation violates Section 134. Companies and directors can face fixed penalties even without mala fide intent.
The adjudicating authority held that delayed appointment of a woman director constitutes a continuing default warranting financial penalties.
The ROC held that failure to appoint a woman director within the prescribed period violates section 149(1). Monetary penalties were imposed despite later rectification of the default.
