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...
A prolonged violation of Independent Director requirements led to penalties on both the company and its officer. The ruling underscores consequences of continuous default under corporate law.
The issue involved non-compliance with Section 150(1) due to improper appointment of an independent director. The authority held the company and officer liable, emphasizing mandatory selection from the IICA databank.
The ROC imposed penalties for appointing an Independent Director not listed in the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance with eligibility requirements under Section 150(1).
The ROC penalized the company for not appointing an Independent Director from the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 150(1) of the Companies Act.
The authority penalized the company for delayed filing of MGT-6 beyond the prescribed timeline. It held that even a short delay constitutes a violation under Section 89(7).
The authority penalized the company for failing to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a resolution. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties under Section 117(2).
A massive delay in filing BEN-2 for significant beneficial ownership led to maximum penalties. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts strict penal consequences.
The ROC held that no penalty is leviable as the company filed its annual return within 30 days of the notice. The ruling highlights that timely compliance can nullify penal consequences under the Companies Act.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to follow mandatory secretarial standards in company meetings. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of compliance obligations under the Companies Act.
The ROC penalized directors for not holding mandatory Board Meetings. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with governance requirements under the Companies Act.
