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 Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement involving one investor formed part of a single integrated transaction ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a start-up company and its officers for delayed filing of e-Form MGT-14 relating to a Special Resolution under ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of e-Form PAS-3 relating to private placement allotment under Se...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for utilizing private placement funds before filing return of allotment under Secti...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai-II imposed penalty under Section 450 after a company incorrectly mentioned the AGM date in Form AOC-4 XBRL. The order h...
The case involved allotment of shares before complete payment and issues with fund traceability. The authority held it as non-compliance and imposed penalties, treating it as a technical breach.
Failure to disclose registered valuer details in explanatory statements led to penalties under Section 450. Each instance was treated as a separate violation, resulting in significant cumulative penalties.
The authority imposed a penalty on the director for incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4. It held that the signatory is responsible for accuracy of filings, even if the error was inadvertent.
The authority ruled that failure to mention CIN on documents was not a continuing offence. Penalty was limited to specific instances, significantly reducing liability.
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties after finding incomplete filing of PAS-3 details. The ruling confirms that such violations attract general penalty under Section 450 when no specific penalty exists.
Failure to disclose allottee occupation and complete details in PAS-3 resulted in penalties. The case highlights the importance of accurate and complete statutory filings.
Failure to disclose complete allottee details in PAS-3 attracted penalties under Section 450. The order highlights the importance of accurate reporting in securities allotment.
The case examined whether Section 42 was violated in a private placement. The authority ruled there was no substantive breach and replaced the penalty with a nominal fine for a procedural lapse.
The case addressed delayed filing of return of allotment under Section 42(9). The authority reduced the penalty after recognizing a government circular that excluded part of the delay period.
The authority found non-compliance with Section 42(6) due to absence of a separate bank account. It held that such violation attracts penalty under Section 42(10).
