Sudhir Mukherjee is a Company Secretary in Practice and he certifies the Annual Return of the XYZ Ltd. otherwise than in conformity with the requirements of Section 92 regarding to Annual Return. What could be the penalt

CS Professional · Secretarial Audit, Compliance Management and Due Diligence · PYQS · June 2025
Sudhir Mukherjee is a Company Secretary in Practice and he certifies the Annual Return of the XYZ Ltd. otherwise than in conformity with the requirements of Section 92 regarding to Annual Return. What could be the penalty levied upon him under the Companies Act, 2013?What could be the penalty on Ashutosh Singh, an Employee of Blue Diamond Technology Limited, as he tampered with the Minutes of proceedings of General Meeting and Board Meeting and is found guilty of tampering with the minutes of the proceedings of meeting, as per section 118 of the Companies Act, 2013.What could be the penalty under section 338 of Companies Act, 2013, where the Company is being Wound Up and it was discovered that proper books of account were not kept by the company throughout the period of two years immediately preceding the commencement of the winding up, or the period between the incorporation of the company and the commencement of the winding up, whichever is shorter.

Answer & Explanation:

Under Section 92(6) of the Companies Act 2013, if a company secretary in practice certifies the annual return otherwise than in conformity with the requirements of this section or the rules made thereunder, he shall be liable to a penalty of two lakh rupees. Sudhir Mukherjee is a Company Secretary in Practice and he certifies the Annual Return of the XYZ Ltd otherwise than in conformity with the requirements of Section 92 of Companies Act, 2013, he shall be liable to a penalty of two lakh rupees.Under Section 118(12) of the Companies Act, 2013, if a person is found guilty of tampering with the minutes of the proceedings of meeting, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. Ashutosh Singh an employee of Blue Diamond Technology Limited has been found guilty of tampering with the minutes of the proceedings of meetings, as per section 118 of the Companies Act, 2013. He shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.Under Section 338(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, deals with the liability where proper accounts are not kept. It states where a company is being wound up, if it is shown that proper books of account were not kept by the company throughout the period of two years immediately preceding the commencement of the winding up, or the period between the incorporation of the company and the commencement of the winding up, whichever is shorter, every officer of the company who is in default shall, unless he shows that he acted honestly and that in the circumstances in which the business of the company was carried on, the default was excusable, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to three lakh rupees.

Topics: Companies Act, 2013

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic