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...
ROC imposed penalties for not filing DIR-12 to record director resignation. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements for maintaining statutory records under the Companies Act.
The authority rejected reliance on indemnity agreements to avoid statutory liability. It held that directors remain accountable for compliance failures regardless of private arrangements.
The authority penalized the company for failing to ensure minutes were signed by the Chairman as required. It held that deviation from prescribed procedure violates statutory compliance norms.
Failure to accurately record board meeting details resulted in statutory violation. Authorities imposed penalties emphasizing strict compliance with minute-keeping provisions.
The authority held that financial statements adopted before audit are invalid under the Companies Act. It ruled that failure to file proper statements attracts penalty under Section 137.
The case deals with a 235-day delay in transferring unpaid dividend to the mandated account. The authority imposed penalties, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory timelines under the Companies Act.
ROC imposed heavy penalties for not mentioning directors’ DIN in financial statements. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with Section 158 requirements under the Companies Act.
The authority imposed penalties as the company failed to maintain a functional registered office for receiving notices. It held that non-receipt of statutory communications constitutes a continuing default under the law.
The authority penalized the company for failing to disclose complete allottee details in statutory returns. The ruling reinforces strict compliance requirements for accurate PAS-3 filings.
ROC imposed penalties for failure to file MGT-14 related to board resolutions approving financial statements. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 117(2) of the Companies Act.
