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...
ROC held that correcting an e-form later does not nullify the original violation. Companies and signatories remain liable for filing inaccurate statutory information.
This case explains that errors in mandatory e-forms, including incorrect AGM details, amount to statutory non-compliance. Both the company and the authorised signatory were penalised under Section 450.
The Registrar penalised a company for missing mandatory disclosures in share allotment filings. The order clarifies that even inadvertent procedural lapses attract penalties, though relief may apply to eligible start-ups.
The order holds that missing mandatory disclosures in share issue filings violate Section 62 read with Rule 13. Even inadvertent procedural lapses can trigger penalties under the residual provision of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that filing an AOC-4 with incorrect particulars attracts penalty even if the error is later admitted and rectified. Administrative correction does not nullify the completed contravention under the Companies Act.
Incomplete disclosures in MGT-14 during share allotment led to adjudication under the Companies Act. Reduced penalties were imposed after applying start-up and small company relief.
Failure to include mandatory disclosures in MGT-14 during share allotment led to adjudication. Start-up and small company relief under Section 446B resulted in reduced penalties.
ROC Mumbai held that omission of mandatory details in AOC-4 makes the authorised signatory liable. A ₹10,000 penalty was imposed for violation of filing rules.
The adjudicating authority held that omission of mandatory documents and incorrect disclosure in PAS-3 violated Section 42. Monetary penalties were imposed with directions to rectify the filing.
Penalties were levied after directors’ DINs were found deactivated for non-compliance with Rule 12A. The key takeaway is that even procedural defaults invite statutory penalties.
