[Attachment(s) from Dipak Shah djshah1944@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] included below]
General Circular No. 10/2015
Dated:13th July,2015
Relaxation of the additional fees and extension of last date of in filing of forms MGT-7(Annual Return) and AOC-4 ( Financial Statement) under the Companies Act, 2013- reg.
This Ministry has clarified vide general circular 8/2014 dated 04/04/2014 that provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 relating to financial statement, auditors report and board's report shall apply in respect of the financial years commencing on or after 1st April,2014. Form AOC-4 or Form AOC-4 XBRL(Format of filing of financial statement) shall, as applicable, have to be used for filing of such statement for financial years commencing on and after 1st April,2014. Attention is also invited to this Ministry's general Circular 22/2014 dated 25/06/2014 wherein it has been clarified that MGT-7( Form of Annual Return) shall apply to annual returns in respect of financial years ending 1st April,2014.
2. The electronic version of the Forms AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL and MGT-7 are being developed and shall be made available for electronic filing latest by 30th September 2015. In addition, a separate form for filing of Consolidated Financial Statement (CFS) with the nomenclature AOC-4 CFS will be made available latest by October 2015. MGT-7 has been notified while AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL and AOC-4 CFS will be notified shortly.
3. In view of this, it has been decided to relax the additional fee payable on Forms AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL and Form MGT-7 upto 31/10/2015. Further, a Company which is not required to file its financial Statement in XBRL format and is required to file its CFS would be able to do so in the separate form for CFS without any additional fees up to 30/11/2015.
4. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
The detailed circular can be read by clicking on the below mentioned link:
Dismisses mala-fide oppression & mismanagement petition filed after 15-years of stoic silence
CLB dismisses petition filed u/s 397 / 398 of Cos. Act,1956 alleging illegal share transfer, illegal allotment and illegal removal of petitioner as director, holds that the petitioner has approached CLB with unclean hands and has no locus standi to file such petition; Notes that the petition was filed in April 2014 praying to nullify the documents filed by respondents with ROC after March 2000, observes that petitioner has maintained 'stoic silence' for 15 years amounting to acceptance by petitioner w.r.t. their exit from the company as directors and shareholders; Rejects petitioners' contention of 'continuous cause of action', observes that petitioners were not bothered about respondent company's affairs for such a longtime; CLB refers to petitioner's 'other company directorships' from annual report of respondent's group co., holds that petitioner has himself admitted that he is not a director of respondent company; Terms petition as abuse of process of law, filed with malafide intention, as there cannot be act of oppression once the petitioner has exited respondent company and where there is no business activities, there cannot be any allegation of mismanagement in company affairs:Chennai CLB
Order passed by Shri. Kanthi Narahari, Judicial Member, CLB.
Senior Advocate R. Murari and Advocate R. Rajesh represented the petitioners and Advocate D. Peruman Sarayan represented the Respondents.
Dear Patrons,
Recently, the CLB in Shri Narottam Singh Vs. Notam India Pvt. Ltd. [LSI-575-CLB-2015-(NDEL)], while allowing the petition filed by petitioner u/s 397 & 398 of Cos. Act, 1956 for oppression against his brother ('respondent'), held as invalid & oppressive, the resignation letter used by respondent director to show that petitioner ceased to be director in the company. CLB rejected respondent's contention that the petition was not maintainable as another petition was filed before Civil Court alleging forgery of resignation letter. The Civil Judge had dismissed the suit as petitioner could not produce proof of forgery.
The authors, Vyapak Desai (Partner & Head of International Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice at Nishith Desai Associates), Payel Chatterjee (Senior Associate) and Prashant Prakhar (Associate, Corporate & Regulatory Practice), on a close perusal of the above ruling, opine that the principles of res judicata are not applicable in cases where the reliefs sought are different in nature based on statutory rights and could not have been granted by an earlier court.
The authors lay emphasis in understanding the chronology of events and note CLB's observation that application for withdrawal was made prior to filing the company petition and the civil suit was actually dismissed after filing of the company petition, whereby the civil suit post filing of the petition did not constitute approaching CLB with unclean hands as petitioner had filed the withdrawal application prior in time and not due to objections being raised on maintainability of the company petition.
The authors further opine that "this CLB ruling sets an important footstep towards defining the scope and application of res judicata principle in Oppression & Mismanagement cases, whereby the cases are distinguished from any other civil suits which are generally barred by virtue of the application of res judicata principle".
Click here to read their article title – "Limited application of Res Judicata principle in oppression & mismanagement cases"
Best Regards,
LSI Team
__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from Dipak Shah djshah1944@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] | View attachments on the web
1 of 1 File(s)
| Reply via web post | • |
No comments:
Post a Comment