Non-Appointment CS – penalty reduced – Ac imposing maximum penalty by Registrar of Companies on company, its Managing Director and other director is very harsh, burdensome on Company.
As Rule 8A (Appointment of Company Secretaries in Companies Not Covered Under Rule 8) of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules, 2014 (w.e.f 09.06.2014), a company other than a company covered under Rule 8 which has a paid-up share capital of five crore rupees or more shall have a whole-time company secretary. […]
ub-section (5) of Section 203 of the Act provides that if any company makes any default in complying with the provisions of this section, such company shall be liable to a penalty of five lakh rupees and every director and key managerial personnel of the company who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of fifty thousand rupees and where the default is a continuing one, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which such default continues but not exceeding five lakh rupees.
Penalty for Non-Appointment CS – matter is returned back to Registrar of Companies advising to re-examine the issues in totality and pass fresh order by taking the above facts into consideration before passing adjudication order and imposing penalty on the Company and its defaulting officers.
Order imposes on the EP, CA Pankaj Kumar a monetary penalty of 300,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs); and debars him for 3 (Three) years from being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or from undertaking any audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions and activities of any company or body corporate.
The Audit lapses identified as a result of examination of the Audit File, related material on record and the personal hearing conducted, have been cetegorized into major lapses and other lapses
Lapses relate to the EP’s failure to identify and report material mistatements in the financial statements, standard of audit work performed falling way below the mandatory standards prescribed under the Act and required of an auditor of a PIE.
IBBI has perused the contraventions alleged in the SCN and the reply of the RV on the SCN. It is observed that the RV has neither countered the allegations made in the SCN nor provided any justification as to how his valuation report is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Valuation Rules. A valuation […]
IBBI warns RV to be cautious & transparent while conducting valuation under IBC, 2016 & Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017
Competent Authority has granted an extension for mandatory seeding of Aadhaar for filing of ECR up to 31.03.2024 in respect of the certain class of establishments
