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 ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements attracts monetary penalties under Section 172.
The case deals with failure to comply with the mandatory 120-day gap between Board meetings. The authority imposed penalties despite voluntary disclosure, reinforcing strict compliance requirements.
Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limiting liability to responsible officers.
Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting liability to responsible officers only.
Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was treated as a violation of Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while restricting liability to responsible officers.
Authorities held that omission of Directors’ Identification Numbers in financial statements violates statutory requirements under company law. The case highlights that even procedural lapses attract penalties regardless of intent.
Authorities held that filing financial statements without directors’ signatures violates mandatory provisions under Section 134. The ruling confirms that such procedural lapses attract penalties even if admitted by the company.
The authority penalized a company for filing financial statements without mandatory director signatures. The ruling reinforces strict compliance requirements under statutory filing provisions.
The authority penalized a company for filing unsigned financial statements, holding it in violation of statutory requirements. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to director authentication obligations under company law.
Failure to sign financial statements led to penalties under Section 134(8). The order highlights strict compliance requirements and limited relief for small companies.
