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...
The authority penalized the company for failing to maintain properly numbered minutes. It held that even clerical errors in statutory records attract penalties.
Company held only three Board Meetings in a year, violating statutory norms. Officers were penalized individually for non-compliance with meeting requirements.
The issue involved obtaining more than one DIN in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty, recognizing the error as unintentional and self-reported.
The issue involved duplication of DIN due to ignorance during incorporation. The authority imposed penalty despite voluntary disclosure, reinforcing strict compliance requirements.
Holding more than one DIN violates statutory provisions regardless of intent. The adjudicating authority imposed maximum penalty despite claim of inadvertent error.
The issue involved failure to file annual returns within the prescribed time. The authority imposed penalties and emphasized strict compliance with statutory filing obligations.
The issue involved holding two DINs in violation of law. The authority imposed penalty considering the extended duration of default despite eventual rectification.
The case involved holding two DINs for 1462 days in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering mitigating circumstances.
The director voluntarily disclosed the violation and surrendered the duplicate DIN. The authority reduced the penalty to 25% of the maximum due to non-repetitive default. This highlights the benefit of proactive compliance.
Even though the duplicate DIN was surrendered, the violation period attracted penalty. The ruling clarifies that rectification does not eliminate liability for past default. Timely compliance is essential.
