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 Vijayawada imposed a Rs. 75,000 penalty on three directors of Three Seasons Exim Ltd. for failing to issue the mandatory 7-day notice for two 2017 board meetings.
ROC Delhi held that unscored or uninitialed blank pages in minutes constitute non-compliance under Section 118(11). A ₹25,000 penalty was levied on the company and ₹5,000 each on defaulting directors.
ROC Delhi penalized a company and its directors for failing to properly bind board meeting minutes for FY 2017–18, holding it a violation of Section 118(11) read with Secretarial Standards SS-1 and SS-2.
ROC Pune imposed penalties on WORLDDEVCORP and three directors under Section 118(11) for not maintaining Board Minutes in the prescribed book and without date of entry.
Rosmerta Autotech Ltd. and its directors were penalized for maintaining board minutes without serial numbers for FY 2017-18. ROC emphasized strict compliance with Section 118(11) and Secretarial Standards SS-1 & SS-2.
ROC Delhi imposed penalties on ROSMERTA AUTOTECH and two directors under Section 118(11) of the Companies Act for failing to maintain serially numbered Board Minutes during FY 2016-17.
Rosmerta Autotech Ltd. and its directors were penalized for maintaining board minutes without serial numbers for FY 2015-16. ROC emphasized compliance with Section 118(11) and Secretarial Standards SS-1 & SS-2.
Registrar of Companies, Delhi, imposed penalties on a company and its directors for not maintaining serially numbered board meeting minutes for FY 2014–15, reaffirming that even clerical lapses can attract fines under Section 118(11).
ROC Mumbai levied a ₹25,000 penalty for failure to attach proof of identity and address of a newly appointed director in Form DIR-12, violating Section 152(5) read with Rule 8. The lapse was treated as an inadvertent but punishable compliance error.
Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, penalized a private company and its two directors ₹5,000 each for inaccurately stating the number of board meetings in the FY 2020–21 annual return, violating Section 92(1)(f) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013.
