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 Mumbai held that even clerical mistakes in DIR-12 can attract penalty under Section 450 when incorrect information is certified in MCA filings. The ruling highlights the responsibility of authorized signatories to ensure accuracy of e-forms.
The ROC imposed penalties after a company extended its rights issue offer period following requests from promoter shareholders. The adjudication order clarified that the Companies Act restricts rights issue offers from remaining open for more than 30 days.
The appellate authority found that the company complied with private placement provisions by safeguarding funds in a separate account. The ROC’s penalty order was set aside. The decision highlights evidentiary verification as key in adjudication proceedings.
The issue involved alleged violation in handling share application money under company law. The ruling held that maintaining funds in a separate account ensured compliance, leading to penalty removal.
The issue involved alleged misuse of share application funds under company law provisions. The authority ruled that compliance was established through proper bank account usage, leading to penalty removal.
The issue involved non-filing of Form DIR-12 for appointment of a director. The authority held that failure to comply with Section 170(2) attracts penalty regardless of operational or technical challenges. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with statutory filing requirements.
The issue involved non-filing of Form DIR-12 to report resignation of a director. The authority held that failure to comply with Section 168(1) attracts penalty despite operational or technical challenges. The ruling emphasizes mandatory compliance with director-related filings.
The issue involved omission of allottee occupation details in Form PAS-3. The authority held that Rule 12(2) mandates complete disclosure, and non-compliance attracts penalty. The ruling emphasizes accuracy in statutory filings.
The issue involved delayed filing of Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements. The authority held that a 1,951-day delay constituted a continuing default warranting maximum penalty. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of statutory timelines.
The issue involved delayed filing of Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements. The authority held that a delay of 2,317 days constituted a continuing default attracting maximum penalty. The ruling emphasizes strict timelines and consequences for prolonged non-compliance.
