VMK Professionals Private Limited

18/03/2026

मान्यता है कि ब्रह्मा जी ने जब सृष्टि की रचना की थी उस दिन चैत्र माह की शुक्ल पक्ष की प्रतिपदा तिथि थी। इसी वजह से सनातन धर्म में इस तिथि से भारतीय नववर्ष की शुरुआत मानी जाती है।

सभी के उज्ज्वल भविष्य की कामना के साथ चैत्र शुक्ल प्रतिपदा पर आपको ब्राह्मण नववर्ष 2083 की हार्दिक शुभकामनाएँ।

☺️महादेव हर ☺️

*चैत्र शुक्ल प्रतिपदा का ऐतिहासिक महत्व*

1. इस दिन के सूर्योदय से ब्रह्माजी ने सृष्टि की रचना प्रारंभ की।
2. सम्राट विक्रमादित्य ने इसी दिन राज्य स्थापित किया। इन्हीं के नाम पर विक्रमी संवत् का पहला दिन प्रारंभ होता है।
4. यह शक्ति और भक्ति के नौ दिन अर्थात् नवरात्र का पहला दिन है।
5. सिक्खों के द्वितीय गुरू श्री अंगद देव जी का जन्म दिवस भी इसी दिन है।
6. स्वामी दयानंद सरस्वती जी ने इसी दिन आर्य समाज की स्थापना की एवं कृणवंतो विश्वमार्यम का संदेश दिया |
7. सिंध प्रान्त के प्रसिद्ध समाज रक्षक वरूणावतार भगवान झूलेलाल इसी दिन प्रगट हुए।
8. विक्रमादित्य की भांति शालिवाहन ने हूणों को परास्त कर दक्षिण भारत में श्रेष्ठतम राज्य स्थापित करने हेतु यही दिन चुना। विक्रम संवत की स्थापना की ।
9. युधिष्ठिर का राज्यभिषेक भी इसी दिन हुआ था।
10. संघ संस्थापक प.पू .डॉ केशवराव बलिराम हेडगेवार का जन्म दिन भी इस है।
11. महिर्षि गौतम जयंती भी इसी दिन आती है।

*भारतीय नववर्ष का प्राकृतिक महत्व*

1.बसंत ऋतु का आरंभ वर्ष प्रतिपदा से ही होता है जो उल्लास, उमंग, खुशी तथा चारों तरफ पुष्पों की सुगंध से भरी होती है।
2 फसल पकने का प्रारंभ यानि किसान की मेहनत का फल मिलने का भी यही समय होता है।
3.नक्षत्र शुभ स्थिति में होते हैं अर्थात् किसी भी कार्य को प्रारंभ करने के लिये यह शुभ मुहूर्त होता है।

*भारतीय नववर्ष कैसे मनाएँ*

1.हम परस्पर एक दुसरे को नववर्ष की शुभकामनाएँ दें। पत्रक बांटें , झंडे, बैनर....आदि लगावें ।
2.अपने परिचित मित्रों, रिश्तेदारों को नववर्ष के शुभ संदेश भेजें।
3 .इस मांगलिक अवसर पर अपने-अपने घरों पर भगवा पताका फहराएँ।
4.अपने घरों के द्वार, आम के पत्तों की वंदनवार से सजाएँ।
5.घरों एवं धार्मिक स्थलों की सफाई कर रंगोली तथा फूलों से सजाएँ।
6 इस अवसर पर होने वाले धार्मिक एवं सांस्कृतिक कार्यक्रमों में भाग लें अथवा कार्यक्रमों का आयोजन करें।
7 प्रतिष्ठानों की सज्जा एवं प्रतियोगिता करें । झंडी और फरियों से सज्जा करें ।
8 इस दिन के महत्वपूर्ण देवताओं, महापुरुषों से सम्बंधित प्रश्न मंच के आयोजन करें
9 वाहन रैली, कलश यात्रा, विशाल शोभा यात्राएं, कवि सम्मेलन, भजन संध्या , महाआरती आदि का आयोजन करें ।
10.चिकित्सालय, गौशाला में सेवा, रक्तदान जैसे कार्यक्रम ।
11. पाश्चात्य विचारों से प्रभावित - जिन्होंने भी भारतीय: सामाजिक, सांस्कृतिक, सिद्धांतों एवं सभ्यता परम्पराओं ओर जीवन मूल्यों का अपमानित किया है, उन्हें समाज से बहिष्कृत करे, एवं अपने समाज में संस्कारहीनता से बचायें ।
12. ⁠मांसाहारी व्यक्ति को अपवित्र संभोदित करें, भारतीय सभ्यता के अनुसार प्रत्येक जीव में परमात्मा का वास है ।

आप सभी से विनम्र निवेदन है कि "भारतीय नववर्ष" हर्षोउल्लास के साथ मनाने के लिए "समाज को अवश्य प्रेरित" करें।

भारतीय नव वर्ष मंगलमय हो ☺️

13/03/2026

IBC Section 7 Case Law : February 24, 2026 Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd (Appellant) Versus Ecstasy Realty Pvt. Ltd (Respondent) Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No. 7424 OF 2025 2026 INSC 186

For Admission of an Application under Section 7 of the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority is only require to Examine and satisfy itself that a Financial Debt Exists and there is Default Brief Facts Appellant (Debenture Trustee) initiated corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 against., the Respondent. It was dismissed by the NCLT as well as by NCLAT on the ground that a moratorium pursuant to restructuring discussions was in operation and that the Debenture Trustee had acted unfairly. Aggrieved thereby, the Debenture Trustee is in appeal before Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC.

Judgement : Hon’ble Apex Court noted that the settled legal position that for admission of an application under Section 7 of the Code, the adjudicating authority is only required to examine and satisfy itself that a financial debt exists and there is default in relation thereto. In this context, the observations of this Court in Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank and another (2018) 1 SCC 407 are of relevance and are extracted hereunder:

30. On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case of a corporate debtor who commits a default of a financial debt, the adjudicating authority has merely to see the records of the information utility or other evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is “due” i.e., payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise.’

Supreme Court referred to the Case of Indus Biotech Private Limited vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund and others (2021) 6 SCC 436, a corporate debtor is entitled to establish that the financial debt is not due and no default had occurred in that regard to defeat a financial creditor’s application for corporate insolvency resolution process under

Section 7 of the Code. However, such an exercise cannot assume an indirect way of raising a pre-existing dispute, which would be available only to ward off an operational creditor’s claim under Section 9 of the Code. There is no escaping the fact that the entire case of the respondent company is built on the so-called restructuring of the loan facility under the DTD, but it is an admitted fact that the procedure prescribed under the DTD for such modification and variation of the terms thereunder was not adhered to.

Apex Court also noted that Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872, speaks of novation of a contract when the parties to that contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, i.e., all the parties to such contract must be in consensus as to such substitution. Presently, the admitted position is that the debenture trustee and the other debenture holders were not even privy to the discussion as to the modification of the DTD at the relevant time, let alone being consenting parties thereto. The question of ‘estoppel’ being pressed into service by the respondent company against ECLF and the other debenture holders also does not arise as any waiver of the terms stipulated in the DTD had to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein, under clause 33, i.e., by way of a written document. Admittedly, there is no written document to support such a plea.

Supreme Court held that the NCLT and the NCLAT erred in ignoring the binding terms of the Debenture Trust Deed dated 27.03.2018 and in reframing the terms thereof on the strength of surmises, conjectures and assumptions, which were not borne out on facts and were completely unsustainable in law. Company Petition (IB) 922/MB/C-I/2022 filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Limited, the debenture trustee, deserved to be admitted under Section 7 of the Code.

For Details:

12/03/2026

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India IBC 2016 Update : IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026 (February 25, 2026) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) vide issuing notification dated February 25, 2026, has notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, which shall come into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette. The amendment inter alia substituted the regulation 2(1)(hb), the definition related to fair value:

“(hb) “fair value” means the estimated realizable value of the corporate debtor or the assets of the corporate debtor, as the case may be, if they were to be exchanged on the insolvency commencement date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing, and where the parties had acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.

Explanation- The estimated realizable value of the corporate debtor shall be computed after taking into account the total estimated realizable value of all the assets of the corporate debtor including but not limited to tangible and intangible assets, along-with their underlying synergies.”

Further, the amendment brought substitutions and insertions in regulation 27(1) related to the appointment of professionals; regulation 35(1) related to the determination of fair value and liquidation value; regulation 38A related to treatment of allottees not filing claims etc.

For details :

03/03/2026

रंगों के पावन त्यौहार होली की आपको हार्दिक शुभकामनाएं।”

यह होली आपके जीवन में सुख, समृद्धि, शांति, संतोष और खुशहाली के नए रंग लाये।

24/02/2026

MCA Update : Relaxation on MCA Annual Filling Late Fee for all Due ROC Annual Fillings- Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026.

In order to give a one-time opportunity to allow companies to file their documents related to Annual Return and Financial Statements in the MCA-21 registry, or to file for dormancy/closure, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 460 read with section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013, has decided to condone the delay in filing the above-mentioned documents with the Registrar, wherever applicable, through a Scheme namely "Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026)”.

The Scheme is aimed at improving compliance levels and ensuring that the corporate registry reflects accurate and up-to-date information. Additionally, it is aimed at facilitating inactive or defunct entities to opt for dormancy/closure by paying lesser fees.

Under the Scheme, companies/inactive companies have the option to:
a. get their pending annual filings completed by paying only 10% of the total additional fees payable on account of delays; or

b. get their companies declared as 'dormant company' under section 455 of the Act by filing e-form MSC-1 and paying half of the normal fee payable under the rules. The said provision enables inactive companies to remain on the register of the companies with minimal compliance requirements; or

c. get their companies struck off by filing an application in e-form STK-2 during the currency of the scheme, by paying 25% of the filing fees.

E- forms Covered under Relaxation are :

i. Any one or more of the e-forms MGT-7, MGT-7A, АОС-4, АОC-4 CFS, AOC-4 NBFC (Ind AS), AOC-4 CFS NBFC (Ind AS), AOC4 (XBRL), ADT-1, FC-3, FC-4 (the Forms notified under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Rules thereunder), and

ii. Any one or more of the e-forms Form 20B, Form 21A, Form 23AC, Form 23ACA, Form 23AC-XBRL, Form 23ACA-XBRL, Form 66 and Form 23B (the Forms notified under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules thereunder);

For Details :

19/02/2026

SEBI Stock Exchange Pronouncement : July 15, 2025 Jaykishor Chaturvedi & etc. … Appellant(s) Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India … Respondent Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No(S). 1551 - 1553 Of 2023

Crux of the Matter : Interest on unpaid penalties is compensatory in nature, not penal. Its primary purpose is not to punish the defaulter, but to make good the financial loss occurred to the Revenue on account of delay in receiving the payment that was lawfully due.

Facts of the Case : The appellants are the promoter-directors of M/s. Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act and limited by shares, which is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and engaged in providing various financial services, including lending, loan syndication, advisory, and portfolio management, among others.

The company in the year 1995-96 went in to initial public offer for fully paid-up share capital. The respondent conducted examination of scrip of the company and found that the promoters and directors of the company purchased shares of the company on various dates in violation of the provisions of Regulation Nos.13(4) and 13(4A) read with 13(5) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992. Upon issuance of show cause notices, the Adjudicating Officer passed adjudication orders on 28.08.2014 under section 15-I of the SEBI Act read with Rule 5 of the SEBI Rules, 1995, imposing penalty on the appellants.

Challenging the aforesaid orders, the appellants preferred appeals before the Tribunal under Section 15E of the SEBI Act. The Tribunal dismissed these appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred further appeals before the Supreme Court. By a common judgment dated 28.02.2019, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court disposed of all these appeals upholding the quantum of penalty imposed on the appellants.

Thereafter, the respondent through its Recovery Officer, Western Regional Office, issued demand notices directing the appellants to pay the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer vide orders dated 28.08.2014 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28.08.2014 to 13.05.2022. However, the appellants failed to comply with the demand for payment issued by the respondent. Consequently, the respondent issued notices of attachment of bank accounts. The Respondent also issued notices of attachment of demat accounts.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions taken by the respondent, the appellants preferred appeals before the Tribunal on the ground that the recovery proceedings and attachment notices issued are excessive in nature and grossly disproportionate to the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed all these appeals. Hence, the appellants filed appeal before Supreme Court.

Judgment :
When a penalty is imposed, a specific period is granted for compliance. If the payment is not made within that stipulated period, the delay deprives the Revenue of the timely use of funds that rightfully belong to the public exchequer. Therefore, the accrual of interest upon default is automatic and flows from the nature of the liability – serving to compensate for the time value of money and the disruption caused by delayed payment, rather than to impose an additional punitive burden. Supreme Court held that interest must accrue from the expiry of the 45-day compliance period following the adjudication orders dated 28.08.2014. The subsequent demand notices are nothing but reminders and are not the first demand notices before the accrual of liability for interest. Accepting the appellants’ position would encourage defaulters to delay payment indefinitely under the guise of awaiting formal orders, thereby undermining the efficacy of the enforcement framework and resulting in a loss to the revenue. Accordingly, all these appeals stand dismissed. The appellants are directed to pay interest calculated by the respondent, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

For details :

16/02/2026

IBC Section 7 Caselaw : January 15, 2026 Elegna Co-op. Housing and Commercial Society Ltd {Appellant(s)} Versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Anr {Respondent(s)} Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No. 10261 of 2025 with Civil Appeal No. 10012 of 2025 2026 INSC 58.

Crux : Resident Welfare Association, not being a creditor has no locus standi to intervene in proceedings arising out a Section 7 of IBC.

Judgement : Hon’ble Apex Court inter alia observed that in the present case, the appellant Society is neither a financial nor an operational creditor. It is a maintenance society not constituted for insolvency representation. No documentary proof of registration, collective authorisation, or general body resolution has been produced. Membership is automatic and mandatory, negating consensual representation. Reliance on compulsory membership to claim representational authority on behalf of allottees is nothing but a brutm fulmen. Notably, the intervention application was filed only at the appellate stage and not before the NCLT. The Society is not a party to the financial transaction forming the substratum of the Section 7 application. Hence, no statutory right of appeal inheres in the appellant.

While the NCLAT’s distinction between completed and uncompleted towers may be overbroad and untenable, the ultimate conclusion on absence of locus standi rests on sound legal footing. Permitting such intervention would undermine the expeditious and structured insolvency framework envisaged under the Code the Court said.

The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is equally untenable. It is settled that such violation cannot be alleged in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, particularly where no foundational right of participation exists.

Reference may be made to Bishambhar Prasad v. Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others2023 SCC OnLine SC 458, the relevant paragraphs of which are usefully extracted below: “77. The importance of Principles of Natural Justice, among which we are concerned with audi alterem partem in this case, have been deliberated upon by this Court numerous times in the past. As far back as in Union of India v. P.K. Roy (1968) 2 SCR 186, the Court held:
“12…But the extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case…”
Xx xx xx

79. In this context, it may be true that the Principles of Natural Justice entailed giving Respondent No. 1 an opportunity to defend its rights. However, the most decisive and crucial factor is whether any legally vested ‘right’ ever accrued in favour of Respondent No. 1, which the State Government could not have despoiled behind its back. It has already been held by us categorically that RIICO had no authority whatsoever to accord permission for conversion and sub division of the industrial land allotted to Respondent No. 1. We have further opined that the State Government has always retained its authority as lessor and was the only competent authority to grant such permissions to Respondent No. 1 within the framework of the 1959 Rules. The irresistible conclusion would be that the self styled power exercised by RIICO, was without any sanction in law; it lacked inherent competence and RIICO acted beyond its jurisdiction in respect of LIA.

For details:

14/02/2026

Lifting of the Corporate Veil Pronouncement : January 12, 2026 Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) (Appellant) VS. M/S Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd& Ors(Respondents) Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal Nos. 8465-8466 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2024 2026 INSC 51

The lifting of the corporate veil is an exceptional measure, to be resorted to only upon a clear finding that the corporate personality was abused for fraudulent or dishonest purposes. Issue for Consideration Can persons who were arrayed as respondents in the consumer complaints but ultimately against whom no notice was issued and the complaints did not proceed, could be brought within the net of ex*****on, on the premise that they were directors/promoters of the judgment-debtor company. NCDRC has answered this question in the negative. In the present case, Supreme Court called upon to decide whether such view warrants interference.

Judgement : Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the case of Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan (2022) 14 SCC 609 where this Court held that: “14. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. The decree must be executed as it is. Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree …”
It is trite that a decree cannot, by process of ex*****on, be employed to shift or enlarge liability so as to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder. Where the judgment debtor is a company, the liability of its shareholders or joint venture partners remains confined to the extent of their shareholding or to such guarantees or undertakings as may have been expressly furnished by them.

Supreme Court said that in the present case, the appellant has neither pleaded nor established that the respondents 2 to 9 had furnished any guarantee or surety in respect of the investment made in the project, nor has any material been placed on record to attract the application of Section 14(3) of the IBC. Once a moratorium has been declared against the judgment debtor company, i.e., ACIPL, the modes of ex*****on contemplated under Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 20196 including attachment and sale of movable or immovable property, attachment of bank accounts, or withdrawal of decretal amounts from the accounts of the judgment debtor, stand interdicted. Ex*****on proceedings cannot, therefore, be permitted to continue indirectly against the respondents 2 to 9, who are neither judgment debtors nor guarantors, and against whom no independent liability under the order allowing the complaints has been established.

Supreme Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P.(1999) 4 SCC 458 underscored that a clear distinction must be maintained between a company and its shareholders by observing as follows:
“15. A clear distinction must be drawn between a company and its shareholder, even though that shareholder may be only one and that the Central or a State Government. In the eye of the law, a company registered under the Companies Act is a distinct legal entity other than the legal entity or entities that hold its shares.”

Supreme Court noted that the invocation of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is wholly unwarranted in the present factual matrix. The lifting of the corporate veil is an exceptional measure, to be resorted to only upon a clear finding that the corporate personality was abused for fraudulent or dishonest purposes. Such a finding must be preceded by specific pleadings and a determination on merits. No such allegation of fraud or misuse of the corporate form was either pleaded or established before the adjudicatory forum. In the absence of a prior and reasoned determination justifying disregard of the corporate personality, the directors/promoters cannot be exposed to personal liability through ex*****on.

For details:

14/02/2026

14 फरवरी 2019 को शहीद हुए 40 वीरों को याद करने और उनके बलिदान का सम्मान करने के लिए ‘ब्लैक डे’ के तौर पर मनाया जाता है। देश के शहीदों को श्रद्धांजलि 🙏🏻।

07/02/2026

SDD (Structural Digital Database) For Maintenance of Information Under Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, an Effective Tool to Curb Insider Trading and Securing Price Sensitive Information(s), to Protect the Interests of Retail Investors.

Find below our brief writeup for knowledge and reference:

Are

06/02/2026

Compliance Comparison For Public Companies And Private Limited Companies, Relatively Private Companies are Exempted From Various Norms Within Company Act 2013.

Find below our brief writeup for knowledge and reference:

Are