Friday, November 21, 2025

RECENT AMENDMENTS TO LODR -SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025, published in the Official Gazette on 19 November 2025

 

RECENT AMENDMENTS TO LODR -SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025, published in the Official Gazette on 19 November 2025


 

DETAILS

IMPACT:

1

2(1)(zc)(e) retail purchases from any listed entity or its subsidiary by its directors or its employees key managerial personnel, without establishing a business relationship and at the terms which are uniformly applicable/offered to all employees, directors, key managerial personnel and relatives of directors or key managerial personnel”.

Directors and key managerial personnel can make retail purchases on uniform terms without being treated as RPT.

2

The listed entity shall use any of the electronic mode of payment facility approved by the Reserve Bank of India, in the manner specified in Schedule I, for the payment of the following:

(a) dividends;

(b) interest;

 (c) redemption or repayment amounts:.

Payments must be made only through RBI-approved electronic modes like UPI payments, Net Banking ,RTCGS, NEFT etc.

 

In sub-regulation (1), in the first proviso, Provided that a transaction with a related party shall be considered material, if the transaction(s) to be entered into individually or taken together with previous transactions during a financial year, exceeds

Materiality will be determined as per the newly inserted Schedule XII. Schedule XII provides a tier-based threshold depending on consolidated turnover.

 

 

MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO REGULATION 23 —RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS. In sub-regulation (2), in the second proviso, clause (b) has been substituted,

“(b) a related party transaction above rupees one crore, whether entered into individually or taken together with previous transactions during a financial year, to which the subsidiary of a listed entity is a party but the listed entity is not a party, shall require prior approval of the audit committee of the listed entity if the value of such transaction, exceeds the lower of the following:

i)                 ten percent of the annual standalone turnover of the subsidiary as per the last audited financial statements of the subsidiary; or

ii)                (ii) the threshold for material related party transactions of listed entity as specified in Schedule XII of these regulations.”;

 

Audit committee approval for subsidiary-level RPTs

Even if the listed entity is not a party to the RPT, if a subsidiary of the listed entity enters an RPT crossing certain thresholds (specified in Schedule XII or e.g. ₹1 crore), then the audit committee of the listed entity must approve.

 

Validity period of omnibus shareholder approvals

The amendment adds provisos about omnibus approvals for RPTs:

 

Omnibus approval granted at an AGM is valid up to the date of the next AGM (within timelines under the Companies Act, 2013).

 

Omnibus approvals granted in a general meeting other than the AGM are valid for not more than one year from date of the approval.

 

Clarification of “holding company” for RPTs

In one sub-regulation an Explanation has been added to clarify that “holding company” used in clause (b) refers to and shall be deemed to have always referred to a listed holding company.

 

Disclosure requirements and annual report dispatch changes

Under Regulation 53, amendments include:

 

Specifying that the annual report of the listed entity shall contain disclosures as specified in the Companies Act or the statute under which such listed entity is constituted.

 

Require submission to stock exchange and debenture trustee and publication on its website of: (a) a copy of the annual report on or before dispatch to shareholders OR submission to Central/State Government; (b) in case of any changes to the annual report post-AGM, a revised copy with details/explanation within 48 hours of the AGM or before dispatch.

 

The draft further allows (optionally) QR code/static link for those holders of non-convertible securities who have not registered email addresses.

 

In sub-regulation (1), The annual report of the listed entity shall contain disclosures as specified in Companies Act, 2013 or the statute under which such listed entity is constituted, along with the following

To extend and mandate Annual Report disclosure and submission requirements to listed entities constituted under statutes other than the Companies Act, 2013, by expressly covering entities incorporated under special Acts within the ambit of Regulation 53.”

 

in sub-regulation (5), after clause (e) the following Explanation has been inserted, namely,“Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the term ‘holding company’ used in clause (b) of this sub-regulation refers to and shall be deemed to have always referred to a listed holding company.”

(b) transactions entered into between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary whose accounts are consolidated with such holding company and placed before the shareholders at the general meeting for approval.

This removes ambiguity that approval exemptions applied only to listed holding companies

 

—ANNUAL REPORT. TO STOCK EXCHANGE & Debenture Trustees

 

sub-regulation (2) shall be substituted, “(2) The listed entity shall submit to the stock exchange and the debenture trustee and publish on its website(

a) a copy of the annual report, sent to the shareholders along with the notice of the annual general meeting, not later than the date of commencement of dispatch to its shareholders; and on or before the date of dispatch of the same to its shareholders or the date of submission to the Central Government or the State

Government, as the case may be; and

 

(b) in the event of any changes to the annual report, the revised copy along with the details and explanation for the changes, not later than within 48 hours after the annual general meeting or on or before the date of dispatch of the same to its shareholders or the date of submission to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.”

The amendment broadens applicability to statutory entities, provides flexible but time-bound submission triggers, and ensures timely, transparent disclosure of Annual Reports and their revised versions across all types of listed entities.

 

in sub-regulation (1), clause (b) has been substituted with the following, namely

,(b) Hard copy of statement containing the salient features of all the documents, as specified in Section 136 of Companies Act, 2013 and rules made thereunder to those holders of non convertible securities who have not so registered;

“(b) A letter providing the web-link including the exact path where complete details of the Annual Report is available, which may at the option of the listed entity, also include a static Quick Response Code, to those holder(s) of non-convertible securities that have not registered their respective email addresses

Instead of sending a physical Annual Report: A letter with the web link with the exact path to the full annual report, and A Quick Response (QR) code to allow easy access to the digital version of the report.

 

DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION TO HOLDERS OF NON-CONVERTIBLE

after sub-regulation (1), the following sub-regulation has been inserted, namely,“(1A) The listed entity shall send the documents referred to in sub-regulation (1), within the timelines specified in Section 136 of Companies Act, 2013 and rules made thereunder or the provisions of the statute under which such listed entity is constituted: Provided that in the absence of any timeline in the statute, the documents shall be sent on or before the date of dispatch of the same to its shareholders or the date of submission to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.”

Listed companies: Must send AGM documents at least 21 days before the AGM as per Section 136 of the Companies Act. Listed entities that are not companies: If their parent statute prescribes a timeline, follow that. If no timeline is given, they must send documents on or before the date of dispatch of the same to its shareholders or the date of submission to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.

 

IMPLICATIONS FOR LISTED ENTITIES DUE TO RECENT AMENDMENTS TO LODR

·       Listed companies need to revisit their RPT policies, audit committee charters, omnibus approval practices, and threshold calculation for RPT materiality.

·       Subsidiary transactions of listed entities will receive greater scrutiny — audit committee of the parent listed entity must now consider subsidiary RPTs above threshold.

·       Annual report and other disclosures now require more immediate publication and include digital link/QR code options for wider stakeholder access.

·       Companies must assess whether their existing definitions of “related party”, “holding company”, etc., align with the expanded definitions under this amendment.

·       Governance frameworks (especially board/audit committee oversight) need updating to reflect these changes — including the validity of omnibus shareholder approvals.

 


Monday, November 17, 2025

CLASS ACTION SUIT BY ANKIT JAIN, A MINORITY SHAREHOLDER AGAINST JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED. ANKIT JAIN Vs JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED

 CLASS ACTION SUIT BY ANKIT JAIN, A MINORITY SHAREHOLDER AGAINST JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED.

ANKIT JAIN Vs JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED


WHO FILED THE CASE?

The petitioners are a group of minority shareholders led by Ankit Jain.

The class is said to represent a very large number of shareholders — ~45,000 according to Jain’s claim.

India's first class action suit under Section 245 of Companies Act 2013.

This is significant because Section 245 had been largely dormant for more than 8 years; this case is being seen as a landmark or test case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petition is filed under Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013, which provides for class-action suits (i.e., collective action by shareholders) in cases of mismanagement or prejudicial conduct.

SERIOUS FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT AND RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS

The plaintiffs allege serious financial mismanagement and related-party transactions that have harmed the company and its minority shareholders.

HUGE INVESTMENTS IN GROUP COMPANY

JPFL made large investments (~₹703.79 crore) in Jindal Powertech (a group company) via preference shares, despite Jindal Powertech reportedly making sustained losses.

OCPS WERE ISSUED AT A HIGH DISCOUNT

Optionally Convertible Preference Shares (OCPS) worth ~₹440.2 cr were sold to the SSJ Trust (a promoter-linked trust) for around ₹66.03 cr.

RPS WERE ISSUED AT A HIGH DISCOUNT

Redeemable Preference Shares (RPS) worth ~₹263.59 cr were sold to Jindal Poly Investment for ~₹39.53 cr

ALLEGED LOSS TO JPFL IS AROUND Rs 2500 Crores

The petitioners estimate the loss to Jindal Poly Films (and thereby its public shareholders) at around ₹2,500+ crore.

COUNTER BY JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD

Jindal Poly Films has challenged the maintainability of the class action petition. They argue that the claims go beyond what Section 245 allows.

SOME IMPORTANT LEGAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE

THE CASE IS ACTIVELY ENQUIRED BY NCLT , NEW DELHI

Section 245 applies to ongoing misconduct, and the alleged transactions are past, concluded acts that were approved by shareholders.

The defined 'class' of shareholders is not homogenous.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The case is closely watched as it will likely set a major precedent for the interpretation and scope of Section 245, clarifying how class action remedies can be used by minority shareholders in India.

If successful, this case could empower minority shareholders in India and lead to more collective legal actions against promoter-driven misconduct.

The NCLT's final decision is still awaited and will be highly influential in shaping India's corporate governance and minority shareholder rights.

R V SECKAR FCS,LLB 79047 19295

Sunday, November 16, 2025

SIPHONING OF IPO FUNDS BY 20 SMEs SEBII FINDS EVIDENCE FOR ISSUES MANAGED BY MERCHANT BANKER FIRST OVERSEAS CAPITAL LTD (FOCL)

 SIPHONING OF IPO FUNDS BY 20 SMEs SEBII FINDS EVIDENCE FOR ISSUES MANAGED BY MERCHANT BANKER FIRST OVERSEAS CAPITAL LTD  (FOCL)



SYNOPTICS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

SEBI’s probe cantered on Synoptics Technologies Ltd, an IT company that raised money via an SME IPO on the NSE Emerge platform.

The total IPO size was ₹ 54.04 crore, of which ₹ 35 crore was fresh issue money (i.e., funds raised from the public) according to SEBI.

PUBLIC  “ISSUE-RELATED EXPENSES.”

SEBI found that ~₹ 19 crore (about 54% of the fresh issue proceeds) was transferred out from the IPO escrow account before listing/trading began, under the guise of “issue-related expenses.”

BUDJETED  ISSUE RELATED EXPENSE

Crucially, this ₹ 19 cr was much larger than what was disclosed in the prospectus for issue-related expenses — Synoptics had declared only ₹ 0.80 Crore (₹ 80 lakhs) in the prospectus for those expenses.

WIDER PROBE — 20 SME IPOS IN FOCUS

SEBI has stated that it will examine ~20 other SME IPOs which had First Overseas Capital as the lead manager (between May 2022 and April 2025) to check if similar misuse occurred

SYNOPTIC & PROMOTERS BARRED:

 SEBI has debarred Synoptics Technologies and its three promoters (Jatin Shah, Jagmohan Shah, Janvi Shah) from the securities market, pending further investigations.

FOCL RESTRICTED:

SEBI has barred First Overseas Capital Ltd (FOCL) from taking any new merchant banking mandates (IPO management) until further orders.

REGULATORY RISK FOR SMES / IPO INVESTORS:

This is a big red flag for SME IPOs. SEBI’s move shows that even “small IPOs” (SME IPOs) are not free from serious misconduct.

MERCHANT BANKER ACCOUNTABILITY:

This case could set a precedent: merchant bankers can no longer just be "issue gatekeepers" they are being held accountable for post-IPO fund utilization.

R V SECKAR , FCS, LLB ,79047 19295


Saturday, November 15, 2025

PENALTY ON STATUTORY AUDITOR FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS & MSME INTEREST DUES

 PENALTY ON STATUTORY AUDITOR FOR NON-

DISCLOSURE OF RELATED PARTY

 TRANSACTIONS & MSME INTEREST DUES



ROC Bangalore penalizes Statutory Auditor – Deloitte Haskins & Sells in the matter of Stanly OEM Sofas Limited

FACTS OF THE CASE

Non-disclosure of MSME interest details by statutory auditors is a serious issue leading to penalties for both the company and the auditor, as it violates the requirements of the MSMED Act, 2006 and the Companies Act, 2013.

Auditors are responsible for reporting the company's non-compliance, including details on unpaid amounts, delayed interest, and interest accrued but unpaid to MSME suppliers.

 Recent changes also require disclosure of all MSME payments, not just delayed ones, in Form 3CD of the tax audit report under Section 43B(h).

MSMED ACT, 2006:

Buyers of goods and services from MSMEs must disclose the status of payments to MSMEs in their annual accounts. This includes unpaid amounts, interest paid, and interest accrued but unpaid.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS NOT REPORTED

·      Non-disclosure of related entities as required under AS-18

 

·      Related party transactions carried out without proper Board approval.

 

ROC,BENGALURU LEVIES FINE ON PARTNER AT DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS,

The Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, has imposed a penalty of ₹30,000 on Monisha Parikh, Partner at Deloitte Haskins & Sells, for failing to report critical non-compliances under Section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Order dated 28.04.2025).

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Despite these significant irregularities, the statutory audit report contained no adverse remarks or qualifications.

This action underscores the increasing regulatory emphasis on auditor accountability, reporting diligence, and transparency in corporate disclosure.

Auditors must ensure accurate statutory disclosures to avoid penalties and legal consequences.

R V SEKAR FCS,LLB, 79047 19295

Friday, November 14, 2025

FOR THE ATTENTION OF LANDLORS & TENANTS FROM JULY 1, 2025, EVERY RENTAL OR LEASE AGREEMENT MUST HAVE DIGITAL STAMPING + REGISTRATION — OR YOU COULD FACE PENALTIES UP TO ₹5,000!

 FOR THE  ATTENTION OF LANDLORS & TENANTS

FROM JULY 1, 2025, EVERY RENTAL OR LEASE

 AGREEMENT MUST HAVE DIGITAL STAMPING +

 REGISTRATION — OR YOU COULD FACE

 PENALTIES UP TO ₹5,000!



Renting a house without a registered agreement is no longer safe or valid.

From July 1, 2025, every rent deal must have digital stamping + registration — or you could face penalties up to ₹5,000!

WHAT THE NEW RULE SAYS

MANDATORY DIGITAL STAMPING FROM JULY 1, 2025

As of July 1, 2025, all new rental agreements (residential & commercial) must be digitally stamped via authorized online/e-stamping platforms.

This means you can’t just use traditional physical stamp paper like before.

PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE

If you don’t use a digital stamp for a new rent agreement, there’s a fine of ₹5,000.

According to some sources, the fine applies to the landlord or property owner.

REGISTRATION STILL RELEVANT

Beyond stamp duty, the agreement may also need to be registered, depending on the state and the duration of the lease. For instance, in Maharashtra, rent agreements for more than 11 months must be registered.

Not registering (or improper stamping) can have legal consequences.

WHY THIS CHANGE IS HAPPENING?

FRAUD PREVENTION:

Digital stamps make agreements more traceable and harder to forge.

LEGAL CLARITY & ENFORCEABILITY:

Digitally stamped agreements are more legally robust.

Convenience & Transparency: Process goes online; easier to store, verify, and retrieve.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IF YOU'RE INVOLVED IN A RENT DEAL

LANDLORDS:

Make sure any new or renewed agreement is digitally stamped. Don’t risk the ₹5,000 penalty.

TENANTS:

Ask your landlord to provide a digitally stamped agreement. Keep a copy.

USE AUTHORIZED PLATFORMS:

Use government-approved e-stamping portals (e.g., SHCIL or state portals) to do this properly.

REGISTER IF REQUIRED:

Check your state’s rules on registration (especially for long-term leases) and do the registration if mandatory.

SAVE DIGITAL COPIES:

Once stamped, save the PDF + the digital certificate — this will be useful for legal, HRA, or verification purposes.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

STATE VARIATIONS:

 Stamp duty rates and registration rules differ a lot between states. Example: Maharashtra has its own rates and portal rules.

ONLY NEW AGREEMENTS:

 Many sources say this rule applies for new or renewed rental agreements from July 1, 2025.

R V SEKAR FCS,LLB, 79047 19295



Thursday, November 13, 2025

CAN A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BE HELD FOR ABETMENT OF MONEY LAUNDERING MERELY ISSUING FORM 15CB UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT ?

 CAN A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BE HELD FOR ABETMENT OF MONEY LAUNDERING MERELY ISSUING FORM 15CB UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT ?

[THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR V. MURALI KRISHNA CHAKRALA — SLP (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO. 8123/2024 (SUPREME COURT)]

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner K. Murali Krishna Chakrala (a Chartered Accountant) had issued five certificates in Form 15CB under Rule 37BB of the Incometax Rules, 1962 in favour of M/s B.K. Electro Tool Products (a Chennai-based entity) for foreign outward remittances.

The remittances were alleged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to be part of bogus import transactions/fictitious bank accounts and hence involving the proceeds of crime.

 

The prosecution sought to implicate the CA under Section 3 of PMLA — for “knowingly assisting” in money-laundering by issuing Form 15CB without validating the genuineness of the underlying transactions.

DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

The High Court held that issuing Form 15CB by a CA in the ordinary course of professional duty does not automatically amount to an offence under Section 3 of PMLA unless there is knowledge or intent (mens rea) of assisting laundering.

SUPREME COURT PROTECTS PRACTICING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT :

SC Held that merely issuing Form 15CB under the Income-Tax Act does not amount to abetment of money laundering.

The Supreme Court upheld this reasoning by Chennai High Court, affirming that the CA cannot be held criminally liable merely for performing his statutory duty under tax law.

KEY TAKE-AWAY POINTS

Issuing Form 15CB by a CA in good faith, based on client-submitted documents, is not by itself offence under PMLA.

To incur liability under Section 3 PMLA, there must be knowledge or conscious assistance in process connected with proceeds of crime.


R V SECKAR , FCS ,LLB 79047 19295