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 Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of Form PAS-3 under Section 42(8) of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority held that delayed filing of return of allotment attracts a separate penalty under Section 42(9).
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of Form MGT-14 under Section 117 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority granted reduced penalties after recognizing the company as a start-up eligible for Section 446B benefits.
ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement issue related to one integrated transaction and did not warrant multiple penalties. The authority accepted the company’s contention that Section 42(10) does not contemplate separate penalties for each procedural deviation.
ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement involving one investor formed part of a single integrated transaction and did not justify multiple penalties. No penalty was imposed under Section 42(10) of the Companies Act.
ROC Pune penalized a start-up company and its officers for delayed filing of e-Form MGT-14 relating to a Special Resolution under Section 117(1). Reduced penalties were granted after extending the benefit of Section 446B applicable to small companies and start-ups.
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of e-Form PAS-3 relating to private placement allotment under Section 42(8). The authority held that delay in filing return of allotment attracts separate penalty under Section 42(9).
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for utilizing private placement funds before filing return of allotment under Section 42(8). The authority held that such utilization violated the proviso to Section 42(4) of the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai imposed penalty for possessing duplicate Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The ruling highlights that even inadvertent duplicate DIN allotment can attract continuing penalties.
ROC Delhi held that failure to regularize an Additional Director at the next AGM violated Section 161(1) of the Companies Act. Since the default continued for 2,721 days, maximum penalties were imposed on the company and directors.
The ROC found that the company failed to timely record cessation of an Additional Director whose office had automatically vacated by law. Delayed filing of DIR-12 resulted in severe penalties under Section 172.
