CS Professional · Drafting, Pleadings and Appearances · Documents under Companies Act, 2013
Orion Corp, a US company, registered its Delhi office under section 380 on 1 April. On 10 June it changed its authorised person in India, and the Registrar has not been told. On 25 June, which statement is correct?
No default exists yet on 25 June. Section 380(3) allows thirty days from the alteration to deliver a return of the particulars in the prescribed form, and thirty days from 10 June runs to 10 July, so the period is still open.
- ANo default exists because alterations need be reported only with the annual accounts
- BThe thirty-day period for the return of alteration expired on 10 July, so no default exists yet on 25 JuneCorrect
- CA default exists because alterations must be reported within seven days
- DA default exists because the return was due on the day of change
Explanation
Under section 380(3), a return of the alteration in the prescribed form must be delivered within thirty days of the alteration. Thirty days from 10 June ends on 10 July, so on 25 June the time has not lapsed. Reporting only with accounts is not the rule.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Documents under Companies Act, 2013 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Documents under Companies Act, 2013 questions
- Bharat Components Ltd wants to know who prescribes the accounting standards that its financial statements must comply with. Which statement …
- In a civil suit, Meera Traders relies on a copy of a document registered at the Registrar's office, certified as a true copy by the Registra…
- Kaveri Tech Ltd. is a foreign company that delivered its documents to the Registrar in India. Its charter is in German. Which of the followi…
- Zephyr Holdings Inc., incorporated in Singapore, set up a liaison office in Pune on 1 March. Its charter is in English. By which date must i…
- Norden Marine AS, a foreign company, delivered to the Registrar the name and address of Mr. Rao in Mumbai as authorised to accept service. A…
- For a contravention of section 129 by Meera Foods Ltd, which has a Chief Financial Officer in office, who is liable to punishment and what i…