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 : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limit...
Company Law : Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting l...
Company Law : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was treated as a violation of Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while r...
Company Law : Authorities held that omission of Directors’ Identification Numbers in financial statements violates statutory requirements unde...
Company Law : Authorities held that filing financial statements without directors’ signatures violates mandatory provisions under Section 134....
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.
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.
