Company Law : The submission of MSME-1 is not only a requirement of the Companies Act, but it also has implications on the Income Tax Act and af...
Company Law : Learn the consequences of not filing MSME Form 1 on time as illustrated by a recent penalty case. Understand the legal requirement...
Company Law : Delve into the conundrum surrounding Section 42(7) of the Companies Act 2013 as the ROC Delhi's adjudication order highlights the ...
Company Law : Explore the game-changing Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024, paving the way for Indian...
Company Law : Explore penalty order under Sec. 135 of Companies Act, 2013 on AECOM India for CSR non-compliance. Learn consequences, key takeawa...
Company Law : MCA imposes ₹50,000 penalty on Xinpoming Technology for non-filing of DIR-3 KYC under Rule 12A. Appeal can be filed within 60 da...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court refuses interim relief against NFRA penalties imposed on CAs and CA firm in the Reliance Capital audit lapses cas...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are resp...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates tha...
Company Law : The adjudicating authority held that an unlisted public company violated Section 29 by continuing to issue and transfer shares in ...
Company Law : The order emphasizes that delayed filing may regularize compliance but does not extinguish the offence committed during the period...
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a company filed another entity’s shareholder list in its MGT-7 annual return. The order held that incorrect statutory filings attract liability even if the mistake was later admitted and rectification was sought.
The adjudication proceedings began after the Ministry of Corporate Affairs rejected the company’s NDH-4 application due to non-compliance with financial statement filing requirements. The ROC subsequently imposed penalties for delayed filing.
ROC Chennai held that delayed filing of Form MGT-14 for Board resolutions approving accounts constituted non-compliance under Section 117(1). Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and officers in default.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its directors for non-filing of Form MGT-7 for FY 2022-23, holding the default violated Section 92(4) of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that the company remained in continuous default for several years after becoming legally required to appoint a Company Secretary. The order emphasizes strict enforcement of corporate governance obligations relating to key managerial personnel appointments.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after it failed to appoint mandatory independent directors despite crossing the prescribed turnover threshold. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance under Section 149(4) attracted maximum penalty under Section 172 of the Companies Act.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after special resolutions relating to preferential allotment were filed years beyond the statutory deadline. The authority held that repeated delays under Section 117 attracted maximum penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
The ROC Mumbai penalized an individual for possessing two Director Identification Numbers contrary to Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling highlights that obtaining duplicate DINs, even inadvertently, can attract continuing penalties under Section 159.
The ROC Mumbai penalized a director for filing incorrect AGM and due dates in Form AOC-4 for FY 2024-25. The ruling highlights that authorized signatories are personally responsible for accuracy of information filed in MCA e-forms.
The ROC Mumbai penalized a company and its Managing Director for omitting the mandatory web link of the annual return in the Board Report for FY 2019-20. The ruling highlights that even seemingly minor disclosure lapses under Section 92(3) can attract penalties under Section 450.
