Title Dheera test -3 Answerkey.Pdf (1).pdf ✅

CA INTERMEDIATE BRIDGE TEST SERIES – September 2025 EXAMS Corporate Laws & Other Laws Test -3 [2] www.dheeratests.com 2. 1) C Explanation: As per Rule 3(6) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, premature repayment is allowed after 6 months, but with 1% reduction in interest from the agreed rate. For joint deposits, both holders must consent, but the Act doesn’t require Board resolution for every case. Caution: Option A: Students ignore the 1% interest reduction rule. Option B: Board resolution is not mandated under the Rules for such routine premature cases. Option D: Misconception — joint holders are counted as one deposit, not one member. 2)A Explanation: A company that is not an eligible company can accept deposits from members only, up to 25% of paid-up share capital + free reserves + securities premium account. Since Aspira Remedies has net worth < ₹100 crore, it is not eligible under Rule 2(1)(e). Caution: 35% limit applies to eligible companies accepting from public, not members. Students wrongly assume it's an eligible company (misses ₹100 crore net worth limit). 3)C Explanation: As per Rule 2(c) of Deposit Rules: • Deposit from HUF is treated as member deposit, if HUF is a shareholder. • Deposit from LLP is a public deposit unless it qualifies under exemption (which doesn’t apply here). Thus, HUF is okay (if a member), LLP deposit is public deposit and not allowed for a non- eligible company. Caution: HUF is wrongly treated as public. Students confuse ‘member’ with just legal entities. Misinterprets the corporate loan exemption, which is not available to LLPs under this context
CA INTERMEDIATE BRIDGE TEST SERIES – September 2025 EXAMS Corporate Laws & Other Laws Test -3 [3] www.dheeratests.com 3. C Explanation: Section 92(3) states that a copy of the Annual Return shall be placed on the company’s website and the web link shall be disclosed in the Board’s Report. MGT-9 (Extract of Annual Return) was earlier required to be attached with Board’s Report under Rule 12(1), but this was omitted via Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, made effective from 28.08.2020. Now, if the Annual Return is placed on the website and the web link is mentioned in the Board’s Report, then MGT-9 is not required. The company filed MGT-7 within 60 days of AGM (AGM on 28 Sep → filing on 15 Nov), and included MGT-8 as paid- up share capital > ₹10 crore and turnover > ₹50 crore. Hence, no violation of Section 92 has occurred. Caution: Confusing 60-day limit — here it's within time (28 Sep + 60 days = 27 Nov). MGT- 9 is not mandatory post amendment; students may follow outdated rule. MGT-8 is mandatory for listed companies — SEBI filing ≠ ROC compliance. 4. B Explanation: When a special provision and a general provision both apply to a situation, the special provision will prevail, even if the general one was enacted later. Caution: Time of enactment is irrelevant. Specific law does not become void. It remains applicable within its narrow scope. Uniformity doesn't override specificity. The law respects intention and precision over generality.
Dheera Test Series [4] www.dheeratests.com Part – B Question No 1A Provision: As per Section 119 of the Companies Act, 2013: Inspection Right: The minutes of every general meeting (AGM/EGM) shall be kept at the Registered Office and shall be open during business hours to the inspection of any member without charge. Copy Right: Any member shall be entitled to get copies of such minutes within seven working days after request, on payment of such fees as may be prescribed (₹10 per page as per Rule 27 of Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014). Time Frame: Minutes must be entered within 30 days of the meeting. Non-compliance Penalty: Company and every officer in default are liable for penalty up to ₹25,000. Analysis: In the present case, the company: • The AGM was held on 20th Sep 2023. Minutes were signed on 29th Sep, which is within the 30-day limit — Compliant. • Mr. Jayant’s request on 11th Dec 2023 is within reasonable time and does not violate any time limitation. Section 119 does not impose a time-bar for inspection or copy request post-meeting. • His request to inspect the minutes is valid — the company cannot impose a 30-day prior notice requirement; the law only states “during business hours”. • Refusal to courier a certified copy is also invalid. Section 119 allows sending copies on payment of prescribed fee, no restriction on delivery method is specified Conclusion: • The company’s denial of Mr. Jayant’s request is not in accordance with Section 119. The shareholder had a statutory right to inspect and receive copies, and the company’s conditions are arbitrary and legally untenable. • The company and its officers (including CS and Chairman) are liable to penalty under Section 119(3). 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M 0.5 M