MCA Notification on Late Fees
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Second Amendment Rules 2018 on May 07, 2018. Accordingly, in the event that the due date of filings under Section 92 (Annual Return) or 137 (Annual Financial Statement) of the Companies Act, 2013 expires after June 30, 2018, an additional fee of INR 100 per day shall become payable in respect of e-forms MGT-7, AoC-4, AoC-4 XBRL and AoC-4 CFS. In all other cases where the belated annual returns or balance sheet/financial statement which were due to be filed whether under the Companies Act 1956 (23AC, 23ACA, 23AC XBRL, 23ACA XBRL, 20B, 21A) or the Companies Act, 2013 (MGT-7, AoC-4, AoC-4 XBRL and AoC-4 CFS), additional fee as per the applicable slab for the period of delay up to June 30 2018 plus INR 100 per day shall become payable with effect from July 01, 2018.
SC on Maintenance of Civil Suits After Initiation of SARFAESI Proceedings
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated May 03, 2018 in Sree Anandhakumar Mills Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, has held that a civil suit would not be maintainable when proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (“SARFAESI”) are already initiated. The Court reiterated that the civil court’s jurisdiction is not totally ousted by Section 34 of SARFAESI and the power to grant interim injunction in such suits which are maintainable is also not taken away by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. The Court further clarified that the civil court’s jurisdiction is barred only in regard to the applications filed by a bank/financial institutions for recovery of debts and that a partition suit filed by a person who is not a borrower or guarantor is maintainable in a civil court.
Delhi HC Dismisses Centre’s Plea Against Vodafone
The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated May 07, 2018 in Union of India v Vodafone Group PLC, has dismissed the Centre’s plea against Vodafone initiating two arbitrations (1. India-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement and 2. India-UK Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement) over a retrospective tax liability imposed on Vodafone for its INR 11,000 crore acquisition of Hutchison Telecom. The Court dismissed the Centre’s plea against Vodafone on the grounds of “abuse of process”. Further, the Court also concluded that it is not an absolute proposition of law national courts are divested of their jurisdiction in the event that a private investor and the state commence arbitration with respect to an investment treaty. However, the Court remarked that the national courts must exercise great self-restraint in passing any order in such a matter.
Another Cryptocurrency Company Moves Delhi HC Against RBI
In light of Kali Digital’s petition in the Delhi High Court against the April 06, 2018 Reserve Bank of India circular titled “Prohibition on dealing with Virtual Currencies” (“Circular”), Flinstone Technologies, a company dealing in cryptocurrency has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking a quashing of the Circular on the ground that the Circular is violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.