Category: Company Law

Company Law Articles, Video, PPT, Discussion, Expert Analysis

CCI disposes off 1046 cases out of 1180 cases received under Sections 3 & 4 as on 28.02.2022 (MCA Press Release 14th March 2022)

Posted on by Business So Simple in Company Law, Competition Law

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has received cases against companies (including e-commerce companies) for alleged abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive practices. This was stated by Union Minister of State for Corporate Affairs Shri Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.

Giving more details, the Minster stated that cases received against companies (including e-commerce companies) during the last three years including the present year are as under:-

* Data as on 28.02.2022

As on 28.02.2022, the Minister stated, the CCI has received a total of 1180 cases under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Of these, 1046 cases have been disposed of and 04 cases have been quashed/ set aside by the Courts. Thus, 88.64% of the total cases filed so far stand disposed of.

The Minister stated that Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) prohibits abuse of dominant position by enterprises or their groups. E-commerce companies are covered within the ambit of the provisions of the Act.

The Minister further stated that the CCI has been undertaking various initiatives from time  to time to ensure effective competition and fair play in the market. These, inter-alia, include:

  1. conducting market studies on relevant sectors
  2. undertaking competition assessment of Model Concession Agreements in the infrastructure and other public delivery sectors
  3. advocacy outreach initiatives including State Resource Person Schemes and conducting roadshows on competition laws & practices
  4. upgradation of IT infrastructure and increased use of technology in functioning
  5. opening of regional offices
  6. introduction of green channel for certain combination notifications
  7. collaboration with other international anti-trust authorities etc.

The CCI, the Minister stated, in the recent past had undertaken a “Market Study on E-Commerce in India” to better understand the functioning of e- commerce in India and its implications for markets and competition. The Report enumerates certain areas for self-regulation by the e-commerce platforms, which include:

  1. transparency in search ranking parameters
  2. clear and transparent policy on the actual and potential use of data collected by platforms
  3. adequate transparency over user review and rating mechanisms
  4. notification to business users regarding proposed revision in contract terms; and
  5. clear and transparent policies on discounts including discount rate and participation in discount schemes.

****

RM/KMNRelease Id :-1805999

More than 3.82 lakh companies struck off till financial year 2020-21 in Special Drives taken by Registrar of Companies (MCA Press Release 15th March 2022)

Posted on by Business So Simple in Company Law

Under the Special Drives taken by Registrar of Companies, 3,82,875 number of companies ware struck off u/s 248 (1) of the Companies Act till the financial year 2020-21. This was stated by Union Minister of State for Corporate Affairs Shri Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha today.

Explaining further, the Minister stated that there is no definition of the term “Shell Company” in the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act). It normally refers to a company without active business operation or significant assets, which in some cases are used for illegal purpose such as tax evasion, money laundering, obscuring ownership, benami properties etc. The Special Task Force set up by the Government to look into the issue of “Shell Companies” has, inter-alia, recommended the use of certain red flag indicators as alerts for identification of suspected Shell Companies.

The Minister stated that the Government has undertaken Special Drives for identification and strike off Companies by invoking the provisions of section 248 (1) of the Companies Act.

Giving more details, the Minister stated that the Registrar of Companies (RoC) struck off those companies after following the due process of law from the Register of companies when RoC has reasonable cause to believe that those companies are not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two, immediately preceding financial years. The RoC also verifies that such company has not made any application within such period for obtaining the status of a dormant company under Section 455 of the Act.

DATA OF REGISTERED Farmer Producer Organizations(FPOs) (Press release 15th March 2022)

Posted on by Business So Simple in Business Consultancy, Company Law, Entrepreneurship

The State wise details of Farmer Producer Organizations(FPOs) registered through various agencies including those under the Central Sector Scheme(CSS) for Formation and Promotion of 10,000 FPOs are at Annexure – I. Further under the new FPO scheme, 421 FPOs have been registered by different Implementing Agencies(IAs) in Aspirational Districts as on 09.03.2022. The details are at Annexure-II.

Under the said Central Sector Scheme (CSS), an amount of Rs. 14.05 Crores has been transferred to 352 FPOs towards matching equity grant. The state-wise details are enclosed at Annexure – III. Furthermore, the FPO Management Cost is also disbursed by the Department to the concerned Implementing Agencies for onward transferring to the respective FPOs. So far, a total of Rs. 108.82 Crores has been released as FPO Management Cost under 10,000 FPOs scheme.

As per operational guidelines of the aforesaid Central Sector Schemes (CSS), women farmers’ participation as shareholders of FPOs is preferred and in the Board of Directors (BoD) and Governing Body (GB), as the case may be, there shall be adequate representation of women farmer member(s) and there should be minimum one woman member.

So far, 225 women FPOs have been promoted by different Implementing Agencies as on 09.03.2022.

Refer list

DATA OF REGISTERED FPOs

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1806232&RegID=3&LID=1

PUNE ROC Penalty order for violation of Section 177 (Audit Committee) of the Act in the matter of Precision Automation and Robotics India Private Limited

Posted on by Business So Simple in Company Law

Company Law Adjudication & Appeal

PUNE ROC Penalty order for violation of Section 177 (Audit Committee) of the Act in the matter of Precision Automation and Robotics India Private Limited

The applicant company and its officers, who have defaulted the provisions of section 177 of the Act as the company has defaulted in appointment of Independent Directors on the board and has failed to constitute proper balance of Executive and Non-Executive Directors on Board of the Company which resulted in default in constituting Audit Committee as per Section 177 of the Companies Act, 2013 r/w rule 4 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 and are liable for penalties under section 178(8) of the Act w.e.f. 01st April, 2015 to till date.

Updates-07th March 2022

Posted on by Business So Simple in Company Law, Court Room, GST, Income Tax, Legal awareness, News Desk

🖋️ Court room

SC Allows Insolvency Application Withdrawal as Majority Homebuyers accepted Builder’s Settlement during CIRP

Amit Katyal Vs Meera Ahuja (Supreme Court of India) dated 03/03/2022

Sale deed registration operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration was required or made

Chitranshi Goyal Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) dated 22/02/2022

Parties by agreement cannot give jurisdiction to a Court which lacks jurisdiction

Aanchal Mittal Vs Ankur Shukla (Delhi High Court) dated 25/02/2022

Summons for appearance & authorization for arrest under GST is not a Criminal Proceedings

Saurabh Mittal Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) dated 11/02/2022

Compounding Benefit under Income Tax cannot be denied for non-acquittal from Criminal Charges

Jai Singh Goel Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. (Delhi High Court) dated 25/02/2022

✒️ Laws-Act, Rule, Regulation,Notification, Circular etc.

LLP (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2022 dated 04th March 2022 (Clausewise analysis)

Auto-population of e-invoice details into GSTR-1 (GST Portal updates-03 March 2022)

https://businesssosimple.com/2022/03/04/auto-population-of-e-invoice-details-into-gstr-gst-portal-updates-03-march-2022/

✒️ Articles, News etc.

“Net Profit” calculation for CSR & Managerial remuneration II Net Profit as per Section 198 of CA 2013

ROC Adjudication order dated 03rd March 2022 for violation of 2nd proviso of Section 149(1) of CA 2013 (Non appointment of women director)

Exporter arrested for GST fraud case (Fraudulent ITC claim of Rs. 15.26 Cr.)-GST Updates -04-03-2022

ROC Adjudication order dated 03rd March 2022 for violation of 2nd proviso of Section 149(1) of CA 2013 (Non appointment of women director)

Posted on by Business So Simple in Company Law, Legal awareness, Miscellaneous

ROC Adjudication order dated 03rd March 2022 for violation of 2nd proviso of Section 149(1) of CA 2013 (Non appointment of women director)

Section reference As per Section 149 : Company to have Board of Directors.—(1) Every company shall have a Board of Directors consisting of individuals as directors and shall have— (a) a minimum number of three directors in the case of a public company, two directors in the case of a private company, and one director in the case of a One Person Company; and (b) a maximum of fifteen directors:

Provided that a company may appoint more than fifteen directors after passing a special resolution:

Provided further that such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed, shall have at least one woman director.

172. Penalty.— If a company is in default in complying with any of the provisions of this Chapter and for which no specific penalty or punishment is provided therein, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of fifty thousand rupees, and in case of continuing failure, with a further penalty of five hundred rupees for each day during which such failure continues, subject to a maximum of three lakh rupees in case of a company and one lakh rupees in case of an officer who is in default.]

Delhi Adjudication Order for the violation of Section 92 & 137 of CA 2013 in the matter of ASTRO AUTO ANCILLARIES PRIVATE LIMITED dated 25 Feb 2022

Posted on by Business So Simple in Company Law

Delhi Adjudication Order for the violation of Section 92 & 137 of CA 2013 in the matter of ASTRO AUTO ANCILLARIES PRIVATE LIMITED dated 25 Feb 2022

👉The company could not file its AOC 4 (Financial Statements) and eform MGT 7 (Annual Return) for the financial year ended on 31st March 2020 as its Annual General Meeting could not be held in time.

👉That after holding the Annual General Meeting on 6th September, 2021, the company has filed its due documents viz. eform MGT 7A (Annual Return) & eform AOC-4 (Financial Statement) for the Financial Year ended 31st March, 2020 and thus made good the default.

👉 As per Companies (Amendment) Act 2020 the following proviso has been added to sub section (3) of section 454:

“Provided that in case the default relates to non-compliance of sub-section (4) of section 92 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 137 and such default has been rectified either prior to, or within thirty days of, the issue of the notice by the adjudicating officer, no penalty shall be imposed in this regard and all proceedings under this section in respect of such default shall be deemed to be concluded”

On account of the above amendment since the company has already rectified its default u/s 92 as well as u/s 137 of the Act, before the notice, the penalty proceeding would be deemed to have been concluded.

This matter is accordingly disposed off.

SFIO arrests Satish Kumar Pawa, Saurav Aggarwal, Suhas S. Paranjpe in connection with investigation into affairs of Jagat Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd.(Press release 25 Feb 2022)

Posted on by Business So Simple in Company Law, Legal awareness

Mr. Satish Kumar Pawa, promoter and shareholder, Mr. Saurav Aggarwal, son of promoter and Mr. Suhas S. Paranjpe, Statutory auditor, were arrested by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in connection with investigation into the affairs of Jagat Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The arrests were made as part of the investigation into the affairs of Jagat Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd. by SFIO. 

The investigation was assigned by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to SFIO based on the Orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal. 

The arrest has been made by SFIO in exercise of the powers under Section 212(8) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on the material in its possession which has revealed that these persons were guilty of indulging in serious corporate fraud punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.  They have falsified the financial statements over a period of 3 years by inflating their stock position and falsely induced banks to lend on the strength of the falsified financial statements.  The company borrowed funds from public banks viz. SBoP and PNB and diverted/ siphoned through various channels.

They were produced before the court of Competent Jurisdiction in Delhi and transit remand orders were obtained for producing them before the Special Court (Companies Act, 2013), Mumbai.

The additional session judge, Mumbai, has remanded all the three accused in SFIO custody till 01.03.2022.

The investigation is currently under progress.