Skip to content

CS Professional · Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) - Principles and Practice · Legislative Framework of Corporate Governance in India

Baltic Ventures SA, a foreign body corporate, set up a place of business in Mumbai and filed its section 380 documents. Later it changed its authorised person in India. It then closed the Mumbai office and was dissolved abroad. Which statement is correct?

The company had to deliver a return of the alteration to the Registrar within thirty days under section 380(3), and after closing its Indian business it can still be wound up as an unregistered company under section 376 despite foreign dissolution.

  1. AIt had to file a return of the alteration within thirty days of the change, and it can still be wound up as an unregistered company despite dissolutionCorrect
  2. BIt had no duty to report the change, and it cannot be wound up once dissolved
  3. CIt had to report the change within ninety days, and winding up is barred after dissolution
  4. DIt had to report the change only at year end, and winding up needs RBI approval

Explanation

Section 380(3) requires a return of any alteration in the delivered documents within thirty days. Section 376 permits winding up as an unregistered company after it ceases business in India even if dissolved abroad. The other options misstate the period or the bar on winding up.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Legislative Framework of Corporate Governance in India shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Legislative Framework of Corporate Governance in IndiaFree diagnostic mock

More Legislative Framework of Corporate Governance in India questions