Statutory Auditors, Transport Vendors Under ED Scanner source Economic times

 

The role of statutory auditors and three transport vendors for allegedly colluding with the managing director of embattled Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), a Kerala-based listed company, has come under the scanner of the Enforcement Directorate, according to people with knowledge of the development.

The agency is probing money laundering charges allegedly involving CMRL, its directors and Veena T, daughter of former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

The key allegation is that CMRL made illegal payments of large sums to Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, an IT firm owned by Veena.

ED officials perused a report submitted by the Serious Fraud Investigation office (SFIO) to a Kerala court in April 2025. The report, accessed by ET, alleged that CMRL founder and managing director SN Sasidharan Kartha was instrumental in “orchestrating a complex web of financial irregularities and fraudulent practices leveraging his executive authority to control CMRL’s affairs”.

Under Kartha’s supervision, CMRL implemented a cash management process that involved substantial withdrawals from company bank accounts authorised by cheques he signed, the report said.

SFIO alleged that the MD was responsible for “misrepresenting cash expenses by manipulating entries to falsely classify them as legitimate costs, including sludge handling charges (SHC) and transportation expenses totalling ₹182 crore collaborating with senior finance personnel; and in collusion with statutory auditors, Kartha oversaw the systematic falsification of these entries to conceal fraudulent cash flows”.

It also alleged that CMRL engaged three transport vendors for “over-invoicing, allowing them to obtain inflated amounts in cash”. The report said that “cross-verification of entries in the loose sheets with bank statements from these vendors and cash withdrawals from CMRL’s Bank of Baroda accounts showed a 100% match, conclusively proving that CMRL received these cash payments”. It added that this scheme involved a total amount of ₹43.05 crore between 2009-10 and 2018-19.

SFIO report further said that CMRL’s revenue primarily comes from synthetic rutile comprising about 91% of its income, with ferric chloride contributing roughly 8% primarily through exports to West Asia.

Under the guise of paying commissions to facilitate ferric chloride exports, CMRL transferred a total of ₹13.32 crore, with the true beneficiary being Anil Ananda Panicker, Kartha’s son-in-law. Panicker also served as a director of CMRL, the report claimed.

Veena was questioned by ED last week in connection with the case at its Kochi office. The agency also interrogated the son and wife of CMRL founder Sasidharan Kartha in connection with the case. Prior to that, the agency had questioned Kartha’s daughter in the matter last Monday.

According to the ED, another company, Empower India Capital Investments Private Limited (EICPL), operated by CMRL’s Kartha, had allegedly extended loans of ₹50 lakh to EICPL despite the company allegedly failing to make timely repayments.

CMRL came under the scanner of central agencies following an Income-Tax Department raid in January 2019, which allegedly detected financial irregularities including certain expenses, amounting to about ₹130 crore, suspected to be fictitious.

KEY ALLEGATION
CMRL made illegal payments to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Veena.

FRAUDULENT PRACTICES’
CMRL founder &MD Kartha instrumental in ‘orchestrating a complex web of fin irregularities and fraudulent practices’.

GOVERNANCE ISSUES HDFC BANK SOURCE ECONOMIC TIMES

Governance and Transparency issues  at  HDFC bank  and  Ex chairman highlighted and the same was rejected by the Bank   All is  well

HDFC Bank case: Ex-Chairman Atanu Chakraborty questions external legal review, calls it "superfluous"

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/hdfc-bank-case-ex-chairman-atanu-chakraborty-questions-external-legal-review-calls-it-superfluous/articleshow/132030255.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Former HDFC Bank chairman Atanu Chakraborty has called into question the need for the lender's external legal review into the circumstances surrounding his resignation, describing the exercise as unnecessary and maintaining that he declined to participate because the bank never shared the scope or legal basis of the investigation.

Speaking after HDFC Bank disclosed that an independent review had found no evidence to substantiate the concerns raised in his March resignation letter, Chakraborty said he had repeatedly sought the terms of reference governing the exercise but did not receive a response, Mint said in an exclusive report.

According to him, requests for the review mandate were made several times before he decided against engaging with the process. He also maintained that he did not require validation from an external agency for the stand he had taken.

The remarks come a day after India's largest private-sector lender informed stock exchanges that the review conducted by two external law firms did not find evidence supporting the concerns flagged by Chakraborty when he stepped down as part-time chairman in March.

The bank said the review examined board records, committee papers and other contemporaneous material, besides interactions with independent directors, senior management and key control function heads.

It concluded that the available evidence did not support the issues raised in the former chairman's resignation letter.

Chakraborty's sudden exit had triggered one of the biggest governance debates in the Indian banking sector this year.

In his resignation letter dated March 17, he had stated that developments and practices within the bank over the previous two years were inconsistent with his personal values and ethical standards.

The brief explanation, without elaborating on specific instances, sparked investor concerns and led the board to commission an external legal review

The bank had appointed domestic law firm Wadia Ghandy & Co along with US-based Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati to independently examine the circumstances surrounding the resignation.

HDFC Bank had said the move was intended to reinforce governance standards and provide the board with an objective assessment.

ET had earlier reported that preliminary findings had not indicated governance lapses warranting further action by the board.

Following completion of the exercise, the bank informed exchanges that the law firms' findings were inconsistent with the assertions made in Chakraborty's resignation statement and did not identify any basis to support those claims.


The lender reiterated its commitment to high governance standards and said the review process had now concluded.

The episode has unfolded at a crucial juncture for HDFC Bank, which is awaiting regulatory approvals on key leadership matters, including the reappointment of managing director and chief executive Sashidhar Jagdishan.


The governance questions that surfaced after Chakraborty's resignation had weighed on investor sentiment earlier this year, prompting the board to seek an independent assessment before moving ahead with its succession and regulatory agenda

JIO Public issue source Business standard

 Jio Platforms Ltd (JPL), the Reliance Industries-controlled company that houses India’s largest telecom operator and a growing portfolio of digital businesses, filed its draft red herring prospectus (DRHP) on Friday for what could become India’s largest-ever public offering. The company could raise about ₹37,700 crore through the listing, according to people familiar with the matter, valuing the business nearly ₹9.5 trillion. The filing comes as Jio Platforms prepares its next growth phase, including plans for a sovereign low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite constellation and AI-native services embedded directly into its network.

 

The DRHP is set to lead to the first public listing of a consumer-facing Reliance business. It comes a decade after Reliance Jio’s launch in 2016, which reshaped India’s telecom industry through free voice services and low-cost mobile data. It will be the second IPO from RIL in recent years. It demerged its erstwhile subsidiary Jio Finance into a separate entity and listed it on BSE in August 2023.

According to the DRHP, the IPO will comprise a fresh issue of up to 270 million shares with a face value of ₹10 each. The final issue price will be determined through the book-building process in accordance with Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) regulations. People familiar with the matter said the issuance represents aboutN 2.9 per cent of post-issue share capital. 

At an implied valuation of nearly ₹9.5 trillion (more than $100 billion), the offering would surpass the size of the National Stock Exchange’s proposed public issue, which filed its own DRHP earlier this week and is expected to raise about ₹30,000 crore, according to industry insiders.

DPT 3 EXTENSION

 CA General Circular No. 02/2026 dated June 19, 2026 bearing F.No. Policy-02/2/2020-CL-V-MCA extends the due date for filing Form DPT-3 (Return of Deposits) for FY 2025-26 from 30 June 2026 to 31 July 2026 without payment of additional fees. Extension granted due to capacity enhancement and restoration activities at MCA Data Center following a fire incident on 05 June 2026. Applicable to all companies required to file DPT-3 under Rule 16 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 read with Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013. 

Filing after 31 July 2026 will attract additional fees as normal. Issued with approval of competent authority and signed by Indrajit Vania, Joint Director (Policy)

UCO CEO and Managing Director source Business standard

 UCO Bank has assigned the additional charge of managing director and chief executive officer (MD & CEO) to Rajendra Kumar Saboo, executive director of the bank, according to an exchange filing. The appointment follows a vacancy in the top post after the completion of former MD & CEO Ashwani Kumar's term on May 31.

 

Saboo has been entrusted with the additional charge with effect from June 19, 2026. According to the bank's regulatory filing, he will hold the position until August 31, or until a regular incumbent is appointed, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

 

“We hereby inform that the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, has conveyed the assignment of additional charge of the post of Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of UCO Bank to Shri Rajendra Kumar Saboo, Executive Director, UCO Bank,” the bank said in the exchange filing.

Admissibility of entries in the books of account

 

The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Indian Evidence Act 2023) Section 28 deals with the admissibility of entries in the books of account as evidence in legal proceedings. According to this section, entries in the books of account, whether they are in physical or electronic form, are not sufficient evidence on their own to charge any person with liability.

In simpler terms, just because something is written or recorded in a company's financial records doesn't automatically make it true or legally binding. The law recognizes that there can be inaccuracies, manipulations, or errors in accounting entries, and relying solely on these entries may not provide a complete picture or establish liability.

Therefore, if a court is inquiring into a matter and relies solely on the entries in the books of account as evidence, Section 28 stipulates that such entries are not enough. The court will need additional evidence to substantiate any claims or charges against a person. This ensures that a more thorough investigation is conducted and that judgments are based on a broader range of evidence, not just accounting records.

Other types of evidence that may be required could include witness testimonies, documents, contracts, invoices, bank statements, or expert opinions, depending on the specifics of the case. These additional sources of evidence help corroborate or challenge the information provided in the books of account, providing a more comprehensive understanding for the court to make a fair and informed decision.

Top of Form

 

Penalties and Fines under Companies Act 2013

 

Under the Companies Act 2013, there are provisions for penalties and fines for various non-compliances and violations. These penalties aim to ensure that companies adhere to the prescribed rules and regulations, maintaining transparency and accountability in their operations. Here are some instances where penalties and fines may be imposed:

1.    Late Filing: If a company fails to submit its financial statements, annual returns, or other required documents within the specified timeframes, penalties can be levied. The amount of the penalty may vary based on the duration of the delay.

2.    Non-compliance with AGM: As in the case mentioned earlier, if a company fails to hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) within the mandated timeframe, there can be penalties imposed by the Registrar of Companies.

3.    Violation of Corporate Governance Norms: Companies are expected to adhere to corporate governance norms, failure of which can result in penalties. This includes issues like non-appointment of required directors, non-maintenance of statutory registers, etc.

4.    Mismanagement or Misrepresentation: If there is evidence of mismanagement, misleading financial statements, or misrepresentation of facts by the company, penalties may be imposed on the directors or officers responsible.

5.    Non-compliance with Specific Sections: The Companies Act has various sections covering different aspects of corporate functioning. Non-compliance with any of these sections could attract penalties or fines depending on the nature and severity of the violation.

The Registrar of Companies (RoC) is generally responsible for overseeing compliance with these regulations. The fines and penalties can vary in amount and severity, sometimes escalating if the non-compliance persists or if it's a repeated offense.

It's essential for companies to be aware of these provisions and ensure strict adherence to the regulations to avoid facing penalties and fines that can impact their financial health and reputation. Compliance not only avoids legal issues but also ensures trust among stakeholders and investors in the company's operations.

Top of Form