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 case deals with failure to comply with the mandatory 120-day gap between Board meetings. The authority imposed penalties despi...
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...
The adjudicating authority held that failure to maintain the statutory register of members is a clear violation of Section 88. Such non-compliance attracts monetary penalties on both the company and its directors.
Authorities held that non-holding of Board meetings since incorporation is a serious governance lapse. Directors were personally penalised for violating mandatory meeting requirements under company law.
Failure to file AOC-4 for multiple years led to penalties under Section 137(3). The order reiterates that statutory timelines are mandatory and enforceable through adjudication.
Authorities held that failure to explain adverse audit remarks in the Directors’ Report violates statutory disclosure duties and attracts mandatory penalties.
The authority held that absence of a statutory register of members at the registered office violates Section 88. Administrative or record-keeping difficulties were not accepted as a defence, resulting in penalties on the company and directors.
The ROC imposed penalties after finding that mandatory Board Meetings were not held since incorporation. The key takeaway is that holding and documenting Board Meetings is a strict statutory obligation.
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties for a continuing failure to file statutory financial statements for FY 2020–21. The order reiterates that prolonged defaults attract monetary consequences and require mandatory rectification.
Authorities imposed statutory penalties after a company admitted failure to disclose reasons for unspent CSR amounts in its Board’s Report, holding the lapse actionable under the Companies Act.
It was ruled that failure to properly collate and maintain the register of members constitutes a clear default attracting penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
The ROC imposed penalties for late filing of AOC-4 beyond the statutory timeline. The key takeaway is that timely filing of financial statements is mandatory, irrespective of financial difficulties.
