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...
The issue involved whether omission of PAN, email ID, and address in Form PAS-3 violates statutory rules. The authority held that Rule 14(6) mandates complete disclosure of allottee details. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with corporate filing requirements.
The case examined whether occupation details can be omitted when allottees lack occupation. The authority rejected this interpretation and imposed penalties for non-compliance. The decision clarifies that statutory forms must be filled completely and accurately.
The issue involved non-filing of mandatory Form MGT-14 for board resolutions approving financial statements. The authority held that failure to comply with Sections 117 and 179 constitutes a continuing default attracting penalties.
A director was penalized for holding two DINs in violation of statutory provisions. The key takeaway is that even inadvertent non-compliance attracts strict penalties under company law.
The company failed to conduct the required number of board meetings and exceeded statutory time gaps. The key takeaway is that strict compliance with board meeting norms is mandatory.
Filing incorrect details in statutory forms attracts penalties even if later corrected. The key takeaway is that rectification does not erase liability for the original default.
The case involved non-maintenance of a functional registered office, evidenced by undelivered official communication. The authority imposed penalties, highlighting strict compliance with Section 12 requirements.
The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, holding that duration of default justifies financial consequences despite bona fide intent.
This case examines whether an unintentional duplicate DIN attracts penalties under company law. The authority held that liability is strict, imposing a ₹50,000 penalty despite acknowledging bona fide conduct.
ROC Mumbai penalized the authorized signatory for incorrect AOC-4 filing where consolidated financial statements were omitted. The ruling reinforces accountability for accuracy in e-form certifications under company law.
