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 penalized the company for reporting an incorrect AGM date in its financial filing. The ruling confirms that even inadvertent errors in statutory forms attract penalties.
Authorities held that correcting a defective financial statement filing does not remove penalty liability. The ruling reinforces strict accountability for accuracy in MCA filings.
Authorities held that filing incorrect statutory forms attracts penalty even if later correction is sought. The ruling reinforces that rectification does not erase liability for defective filings under company law.
The ROC penalized the company for filing incorrect AGM details in AOC-4 despite claiming it was inadvertent. The ruling confirms that even minor errors in statutory filings attract penalties.
The ROC penalized the company for reporting the wrong AGM date in two statutory filings. The ruling confirms that even inadvertent errors in multiple forms attract cumulative penalties.
The authority held that securities cannot be allotted before dematerialising directors’ shareholding. A penalty was imposed despite subsequent rectification.
The authority penalized the company for issuing shares below the valuer-determined price, even though the shortfall was later recovered with interest. Rectification did not absolve the initial violation.
Delay in filing return of allotment under Section 42 resulted in penalties. However, reduced penalties were granted due to startup status under Section 446B.
The authority penalized premature utilization of funds raised through private placement in violation of Section 42(4). The ruling highlights that funds cannot be used before allotment and filing compliance requirements.
The case involved issuing a private placement offer before filing the required resolution. It was held that such non-compliance attracts penalties despite subsequent filings.
