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 : The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. ...
Company Law : The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting indi...
Company Law : The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non...
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...
The adjudicating authority held that filing an e-Form with incorrect particulars attracts penalty under Section 450. Administrative rectification does not wipe out the completed contravention.
The ROC held that filing AOC-4 with incorrect company status details constitutes a violation of Rule 8(3). Rectification through GNL-1 does not eliminate liability, and penalties were imposed under Section 450.
Filing incorrect AGM date and due date in Form AOC-4 triggered adjudication proceedings under Section 454. The authority emphasized that MCA filings are public records relied upon by regulators and stakeholders. Responsibility for accuracy rests with the authorised signatory, who was held personally liable.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a Whole-time Director appointment was made effective before passing the Board resolution. The five-day contravention triggered action under Section 450.
The Registrar held that appointing a CFO with retrospective effect without a prior Board resolution violates Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013. Penalty was imposed under Section 450 as no specific punishment is prescribed for the default.
The authority found that approving financial statements before obtaining the Secretarial Audit Report contravened statutory requirements. A monetary penalty was imposed with compliance directions.
Failure to properly maintain Minutes Books under Section 118 led to adjudication by ROC. The company and its directors were fined for breaching Secretarial Standard-1.
The company failed to meet the statutory quorum of 30 members at AGMs, attracting penalty under Section 450. Directors were also fined ₹50,000 each for non-compliance.
The Registrar held that failure to file Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements violated Section 117(1) read with Section 179(3)(g). Penalty was imposed under Section 117(2) on both the company and its officers in default.
The Registrar of Companies levied maximum penalties under Section 12(8) after official letters were returned undelivered. Non-response to the show cause notice led to adjudication under Section 454.
