Related Party Transactions (RPTs) lie at the intersection of business strategy and governance, often attracting close regulatory scrutiny due to their potential to influence corporate decision-making and shareholder value. While such transactions are not inherently improper, lack of transparency or inadequate compliance can raise significant concerns regarding fairness and accountability. This edition of the Insight Series explores the regulatory framework governing RPTs under the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI (LODR) Regulations, supported by perspectives from ROC, RD, and SEBI adjudication orders. By examining these legal precedents and enforcement trends, we aim to derive practical insights that professionals and corporates can adopt to strengthen governance and mitigate compliance risks.
Statutory Landscape of RPTs: Companies Act & SEBI Regulations

Companies Act, 2013
Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 sets out the approval process a company must follow when it enters into certain transactions with its related parties. These transactions typically include buying or selling goods, transferring or acquiring property, taking or giving property on lease, providing or receiving services, appointing agents for such transactions, appointing a related party to an office or place of profit in the company (or its subsidiary or associate), and underwriting the company’s securities.
| Applicability u/s 188 (1) | Section 188 applies when a company enters into specified transactions with a related party, including: Sale/ purchase/ supply of goods, Transfer/ leasing of property, Availing/ rendering of services, Appointment of agents, Appointment to office/place of profit and underwriting of securities. |
| Definition of Related Party
[Defined under Section 2(76)] |
“Related Party”, with reference to a company, means—
i. a director or his relative; iii. a firm, in which a director, manager or his relative is a partner; iv. a private company in which a director or manager [or his relative] is a member or director; v. a public company in which a director or manager is a director and holds along with his relatives, more than 2% of its PSC; vi. any body corporate whose BODs, MD or Manager is accustomed to act in accordance with the advice, directions or instructions of a director or manager; vii. any person on whose advice, directions or instructions a director or manager is accustomed to act. (Provided that nothing in sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) shall apply to the advice, directions or instructions given in a professional capacity)
|
| Approval Requirements | · Board Approval: Mandatory for all RPTs
· Shareholder Approval (Ordinary Resolution): Required if thresholds exceeded |
| Approval Thresholds (as per Rule 15) | Shareholder approval is required if the transaction value exceeds:
· sale, purchase or supply of any goods or material >10% of turnover · selling or otherwise disposing of or buying property of any kind ≥10% of net worth · Leasing of property of any kind >10% of turnover · availing or rendering of any services >10% of turnover · monthly remuneration >₹2.5 lakh per month · Underwriting >1% of net worth (Turnover/Net worth based on last audited FS) |
| Voting Restrictions | Related parties cannot vote on such resolutions, unless 90% or more of shareholders in number are related parties. |
| Exemptions from Section 188(1) | Approval not required:
· Nothing in contained in this subsection shall apply if the transaction is in ordinary course of business and at arm’s length price. · Requirement of passing the resolution under first proviso shall not be applicable for transactions entered into between a holding company and its WOS whose accounts are consolidated with such holding company and placed before the shareholders at the general meeting for approval. |
| Disclosure Requirements u/s 188(2) and 134 | Particulars of Contract and arrangement with RPTs referred u/s 188(1) to be disclosed in the Board Report using Form AOC-2 with justification. |
| Post-Facto Ratification
Sec 188(3) |
Transactions done without required approval must be ratified within 3 months.
Failure to do so: Transaction becomes voidable at Board’s/ shareholder’s option, and directors/employees concerned must indemnify the Company. |
| Penalties
[Section 188(5)] |
Any director or employee of a company, who had entered into or authorised the contract or arrangement in violation of the provisions of this section shall,—
(i) in case of listed company, be liable to a penalty of Rs. 25 lakh; and (ii) in case of any other company, be liable to a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh. |
Key Compliance Requirements under Regulation 23 – SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015
| Policy on RPTs
[Reg. 23(1)] |
Every listed entity is mandated to formulate a Board-approved policy on:
· Materiality of related party transactions · Dealing with RPTs, including clear threshold limits Such policy must be reviewed and updated at least once every 3 years. |
| Materiality Thresholds
Reg. 23(1) read with Schedule XII |
A transaction shall be considered material if its value (individually or with prior transactions in the FY) exceeds the threshold provided in Schedule XII of these regulations:
Note: For listed entities which has listed its securities on SME exchange, the transaction shall be considered material, if exceeds Rs 50 crore or 10% of the annual consolidated turnover of the listed entity as per the last audited financial statements. |
| Audit Committee Approval
[Reg. 23(2), 23(3)] |
1. All RPTs and subsequent material modifications require prior approval of the Audit Committee
2. The Audit Committee Members who are independent directors shall approve the RPTs 3. Audit Committee must define “material modifications” in the policy 4. RPTs of subsidiaries (even if listed entity is not a party) require Audit Committee approval if value of transaction exceed lower of the following: · 10% of standalone turnover of subsidiary, or · Threshold of material RPTs of listed entity as per regulation XII. |
| Omnibus Approval
[Reg. 23(3)] |
The Audit Committee may grant omnibus approval for repetitive RPTs, subject to:
· Defined criteria aligned with RPT policy · AC to satisfy itself w.r.t. the need of such approval · Maximum validity: 1 year · Periodic review of RPTS entered into pursuant to such omnibus approval (at least quarterly) · If details not foreseeable: limit of ₹1 crore per transaction |
| Ratification of RPTs
[Reg. 23(2)(f)] |
RPTs not pre-approved can be ratified by independent Audit Committee members within 3 months or in the next meeting (whichever is earlier), provided:
· Value shall not exceed ₹1 crore · Not material as per sub-reg. 23(1) · Justification for non-approval submitted If not ratified: transaction voidable at Audit Committee’s option. Concerned directors must indemnify the company. |
| Shareholders’ Approval
[Reg. 23(4)] |
1. All material RPTs and material modifications require prior shareholders’ approval by resolution
2. No related parties shall vote to approve 3. No approval needed if RPT is with a listed subsidiary and Reg. 23 & 15(2) apply to that subsidiary 4. For related party transactions of unlisted subsidiaries of a listed subsidiary as referred above, the prior approval of the shareholders of the listed subsidiary shall suffice. |
| Exemptions
[Reg. 23(5)] |
RPT provisions under Reg. 23(2)-(4) do not apply to:
· Transactions between two public sector companies · Transactions between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary (WOS)whose accounts are consolidated with such holding and placed before the shareholders at general meeting for approval; · Transactions between two WOS of a listed holding company and placed before shareholders of listed entity for approval · Payments of statutory dues, taxes, charges, etc. to Government · Transactions between public sector companies and Central/State Government. |
| Disclosures
[Reg. 23(9)] |
Listed entities must:
· Disclose RPTs every six months at the time of publishing standalone and consolidated financial results · Publish disclosures on their website · High-value debt listed entities must disclose along with half-yearly results Remuneration and sitting fees paid by listed entity or its subsidiary to directors/KMPs/senior management (excluding promoter group) are exempt from disclosure if not material. |
When Compliance Fails: RPT Penalties by Regulators
Regulatory scrutiny around related party transactions has intensified in recent years. The Registrar of Companies (ROC) has been increasingly vigilant in enforcing compliance with Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013, particularly in relation to disclosures in the Board’s Report through Form AOC-2. This heightened focus is evident from the growing number of adjudication orders issued by various ROCs across the country for lapses in approval and disclosure requirements.
At the same time, SEBI has also taken a strict view of non-compliance in listed entities, with several orders highlighting deficiencies in approvals, disclosures, and governance around related party transactions under the SEBI framework. Together, these regulatory actions underline the importance of robust internal controls and transparent reporting when dealing with related parties.
Non-compliance Snapshot
| S. N. | Company | Adjudicating Authority & Order Date | Section Breached | Nature of non-compliance | Penalty Imposed (includes penalty for other defaults) |
| 1 | Martin Windfarms Private Limited | ROC (Tamil Nadu) – Order dated 28.03.2024 | Section 188 read with Section 134(3) | Failure to disclose related party transactions in the Board’s Report for the F.Y. 2017-18 | On company – 1.5 Lakh;
On each director – Rs. 15,000/- |
| 2 | Spiegel Enterprises Private Limited | ROC (Karnataka) – Order dated 28.03.2025 | Section 188(2) | Failure to disclose justification for RPTs in Form AOC-2 (2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20) | Rs. 7.5 lakhs each on two Director |
| 3 | Stanley Lifestyle Limited | ROC (Karnataka) – Order dated 25.03.2025 | Section 188 | The Company entered into multiple related party transactions without proper authority. (FY 2015-16, 2016-17) | Rs. 25 lakh each on MD & WTD |
| 4 | Umrit Exports and Investments Pvt. Ltd. | ROC (Karnataka) – Order dated 20.02.2025 | Section 188 read with Section 134(3) | No AOC-2 attached for FY 2016-17 & 2017 -18 with the Board of Directors Report;
Also, incomplete form AOC-2 was attached with the Board Report w.r.t. FY 2018-19 as many columns were left blank |
Company – Rs. 9 lakhs;
Employee – Rs. 1.5 lakh |
| 5 | Watai Electronics Pvt. Ltd. | ROC (Uttar Pradesh) – Order dated 26.02.2024 | Section 188 | The Company entered into related party transactions in respect of sale, purchase or supply of goods or material with the consent of the Board of Directors, however, the transaction value was more than 10% of total turnover of the Company, which necessitated the shareholder approval. | Rs. 5 lakh each on two directors
|
| 6 | Kudos Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd. | ROC (Maharashtra) – Order dated 09.02.2024 | Section 188(1)(f) | Date of board meeting approving RPT not mentioned in AOC-2 (FY 2020-21). Also, as per the reply received in this matter, it was mentioned that no board meeting was held to approve that transaction. | Rs. 5 lakh each on 3 directors and CEO |
| 7 | Adani Power Ltd. | ROC (Gujarat) – Order dated 16.05.2023 | Section 189 read with Section 188 | Non-entry of RPT details in register of contracts u/s 189 (Form MBP-4; FY 2017-18 to 2019-20). The Company submitted that all the transactions were at arm’s length basis and in ordinary course of business. However, the presiding officer submitted that the Company has not furnished the documentary evidence related to transactions in ordinary course of business and arm’s length basis. | Rs. 75000 each on three Directors |
| 8 | Karma Energy Ltd. | SEBI – Order dated 31.03.2025 | Regulation 23(1), 23(4) of LODR | · Failure to take prior shareholders’ approval for material RPTs entered with TEPL;
· Failure to update RPT Policy. |
Penalty of ₹ 2,00,000 imposed on the Company |
| 9 | Linde India Ltd. | SEBI – Order dated 24.07.2024 | Regulation 23(1), 23(4) of LODR | · Failure in obtaining shareholders approval for material related party transactions undertaken with Praxair India Private Limited. | No monetary penalty; remedial directions issued. |
| 10 | Majestic Auto Ltd. | SEBI – Order dated 07.06.2024 | Regulation 23(2), 23(4) of LODR | · Failure to obtain prior audit committee approval for RPTs;
· Failure to obtain prior shareholder approval for material RPTs. |
Penalty of ₹7,00,000 imposed on the Company |
*Reference: orders of ROC, RD (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) and SEBI
Insight
The adjudication orders make it abundantly clear that regulators adopt a zero-tolerance approach toward lapses in Related Party Transaction (RPT) compliance. Most of the penalties do not arise from fraudulent intent, but from procedural lapses—such as missing disclosures in AOC-2, absence of shareholder approvals, incomplete justifications, or failure to obtain omnibus approval of the Audit Committee. Yet, these lapses have attracted significant penalties on both companies and individual directors/KMPs, underlining the personal accountability imposed by law.
The learning for corporates is unambiguous: RPT compliance is not a box-ticking exercise. It requires robust internal systems for identification, timely approvals, accurate disclosures, and documentation of arm’s length justification. For listed entities, the stakes are even higher with SEBI’s enhanced monitoring and mandatory shareholder oversight. The message is simple—when in doubt, disclose and seek approval.
CS Suresh Pandey
Practising Company Secretary
SPG AND ASSOCIATES
9968300649
Coming Up in Edition 06: Private Placement of Securities
Disclaimer: This content is intended solely for research and knowledge-sharing purposes among professionals, based on information available in the public domain. It is not intended to malign any individual or entity, nor should it be construed as a solicitation or used for any commercial or promotional purpose. The views expressed do not constitute a legal opinion or professional advice. While utmost care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the content, no responsibility is accepted for any errors or omissions. Readers are advised to verify the information independently from official and original sources before taking any action based on the same.