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 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).
