Since, no discussion was done on the fees of RV, the IBBI DC found IP in contravention of section 208(2)(a) of the Code, regulation 7(2)(a), (h) and (i) of the IP Regulations, regulation 31A(1)(a) of Liquidation Regulations read with clauses 2, 3 and 14 of the Code of Conduct and Board Circular dated June 12, 2018.
The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Gujrat, Dadra and Nagar Haveli has recently imposed penalties on a company, including its officer in default for the violation of Section 117 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company failed to file the required e-form MGT-14 along with the Board Resolution within the stipulated time frame of 30 days […]
The lapses in Audit identified in this Order relate to the EP’s failure in determining whether the accounting policy of the company conformed to the required standards, failure in applying sufficient audit procedure as per Standards on Auditing (‘SAs’ hereafter), failure to question the management represenations with professional skepticism, and failure in identifying and reporting material mistatements in the financial statements.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs penalized Kosamattam Nidhi Limited for not mentioning DIN of directors in documents attached with e-form ADT-1
Penalties for violating Section 197 of Companies Act as company paid managerial remuneration to a director exceeding requisite approvals
Adjudicating Officer concluded that there was a violation of Section 204 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on Secretarial Auditors.
MCA imposes penalty under section 378ZA(10) of section 378ZA(10) of Companies Act, 2013 as company failed to file proceedings of the annual general meeting, along with report of Board of Directors, audited balance sheet, and profit and loss statements.
The Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad recently imposed a penalty of INR 2,00,00,000/- (Two Crore only) on a company and its officer in default. Additionally, the company has been directed to refund all the money accepted in violation of section 42 of the Act, along with interest. The penalty was imposed because the company failed to […]
Company had issued a private placement offer letter before filing the relevant special resolution in the registry, which is a violation of Section 42(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 14(8) of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014.
The IP submitted that in order to realize the maximum value for all stakeholders, the liquidator is maintaining the business of the CD on going concern basis as recommended by the CoC. He submitted that the CD was intended to be liquidated as a going concern through e auction mode as provided in IBBI (Liquidation […]
