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...
Failure to include required disclosures in an explanatory statement led to adjudication and penalty. Reduced penalty applied due to startup status under Section 446B.
The issue involved delayed filing of statutory forms under company law. The authority imposed penalties under the residuary provision, emphasizing strict timelines for compliance.
The issue involved late filing of commencement declaration under company law. The authority imposed penalties despite the delay being caused by external banking issues.
The case involved non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a whole-time company secretary. The authority held that delayed rectification does not remove liability for past violations.
The authority penalized prolonged non-compliance with mandatory appointment requirements under Section 203. Despite later rectification, penalties were imposed, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for failure to file commencement of business declaration within the prescribed period under Section 10A. The delay occurred after the foreign subscriber could not remit share capital due to SWIFT KYC issues.
The adjudicating authority penalized an individual for possessing dual DINs. The order reinforces strict compliance with DIN-related provisions under company law.
The authority penalized the company for conducting only one Board meeting instead of the required four in a year. It held that non-compliance with Section 173(1) attracts penalty under Section 450.
Holds that failure to appoint a whole-time Company Secretary within the statutory timeline attracts penalty under section 203(5). The key takeaway is that delays, even if due to transition issues, do not excuse non-compliance.
The case addressed non-filing of financial statements under Section 137(3). The authority ruled no penalty since compliance was validly undertaken by the Resolution Professional during CIRP.
