<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (8) TMI 1480 - THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY-ICSI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366008</link>
    <description>A practising company secretary must verify the supporting corporate records before certifying statutory filings, especially where management control is disputed. In certifying Form-32 for Shri Bishender Singh&#039;s appointment, the form described him as a Promoter Director although the board had approved him only as an Additional Director, and the supporting resolutions were not properly verified. In certifying cessation of two directors under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956, the relevant notice, service, attendance, minutes and quorum materials were not examined with sufficient care. The disciplinary finding of professional misconduct was sustained, and the reprimand and fine were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1480 - THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY-ICSI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366008</link>
      <description>A practising company secretary must verify the supporting corporate records before certifying statutory filings, especially where management control is disputed. In certifying Form-32 for Shri Bishender Singh&#039;s appointment, the form described him as a Promoter Director although the board had approved him only as an Additional Director, and the supporting resolutions were not properly verified. In certifying cessation of two directors under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956, the relevant notice, service, attendance, minutes and quorum materials were not examined with sufficient care. The disciplinary finding of professional misconduct was sustained, and the reprimand and fine were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>