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 case involved non-filing of annual return under Section 92(5). The authority held that filing through GNL-2 by the RP during CIRP constituted valid compliance, resulting in no penalty.
The MCA has released draft amendments to simplify company incorporation procedures and reduce compliance requirements. The proposal focuses on form consolidation, digital processes, and streamlined documentation.
The company failed to form mandatory board committees for over four years. The authority held that each non-compliance attracts separate penalties.
The case involved incorrect filing of director designation in statutory records. The authority held that prolonged failure to rectify the error constituted a continuing default, attracting maximum penalty.
The case involved failure to file mandatory Form MR-1 for appointment of a Whole-Time Director. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance constituted a continuing default and imposed maximum penalties under Section 450.
The company delayed appointment of independent directors despite crossing the threshold. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts maximum penalty under the Companies Act.
The issue involved non-compliance with statutory requirements for maintaining board meeting minutes. The authority held that procedural lapses still attract penalties under Section 118.
The authority dropped penalty proceedings after finding that the company had already shifted its registered office and the error was unintentional. Timely compliance and lack of mala fide intent proved crucial.
ROC imposed penalty due to non-conduct of mandatory board meetings during FY 2019–20. The ruling confirms strict compliance requirements under Section 173 of the Companies Act.
The ROC imposed penalties for non-compliance with mandatory woman director requirements. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of Section 149(1) based on turnover criteria.
