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 ROC levied penalties after finding that mandatory company details were omitted from MGT-9 and financial statements. The order highlights that even inadvertent filing gaps attract liability under Section 12(8).
ROC imposed significant penalties for failure to file FY 2019–20 financial statements despite extended deadlines. The case highlights strict consequences for prolonged non-compliance under Section 137.
The ROC held that failure to attach FY 2017–18 financial statements could not be penalized due to post-default decriminalization. The case clarifies the impact of statutory amendments on past non-compliances.
ROC penalized the company and directors for conducting a board meeting 79 days late, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 173(1) timelines.
Authorities held that directors violated Section 184 by not filing Form MBP-1 for FY 2023-24. A penalty of ₹1 lakh each was imposed for the disclosure lapse.
MCA imposed penalties for delayed board meetings, citing a 427-day gap as non-compliance. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines appeal rights and consequences for non-payment.
ROC held that financial statements signed without prior Board approval violated Section 134(1), attracting penalties on the company and directors. The key takeaway is that Board authorization is mandatory before signing audited accounts.
ROC Bengaluru imposed penalties for a 403-day delay in issuing share certificates, citing violation of Section 56. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines the appeal process.
The adjudicating authority held that failing to fill the company secretary vacancy for over three years violated Section 203(5). Full penalties were imposed as the company was not eligible for reduced relief.
The ROC imposed penalties after finding that CSR funds meant for ongoing projects were wrongly spent and not transferred to Schedule VII funds. The key takeaway is that improper use of unspent CSR amounts triggers liability under Section 135(5).
