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...
Omission of required attachments in annual return filing resulted in penalties under Section 450. The decision stresses the importance of accurate and complete filings.
Failure to attach share transfer details in the annual return resulted in penalties under the residuary provision. The ruling highlights that even minor filing omissions can trigger statutory penalties.
Failure to file the one-time DPT-3 return within the prescribed timeline resulted in penalties under Section 450. The authority held that delayed compliance, even if later rectified, constitutes a violation. The case highlights strict adherence to deposit reporting requirements.
The company admitted that omission of the resolution attachment was unintentional. However, the adjudicating authority still imposed penalties under Section 450. The ruling confirms that intent does not negate statutory compliance obligations.
A delayed filing of a special resolution beyond the statutory deadline resulted in penalties despite claims of bona fide error. The ruling highlights strict compliance obligations under the Companies Act.
Failure to maintain a separate bank account for private placement led to penalties equal to the funds raised. The ruling clarifies strict compliance under Section 42(6) and limits penalty to the lower of ₹2 crore or the amount raised.
Delay in filing Form MGT-14 beyond statutory timelines led to penalties on the company and its directors. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 117 compliance requirements.
The case involved non-compliance with Section 42 requirements during a private placement. The authority imposed maximum penalties, stressing that designated accounts must meet strict statutory standards.
The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with Section 173(1).
The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting individuals not associated during the default period.
