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 order arose from the allotment of shares against loans received from shareholders and directors without satisfying the conditions prescribed under Section 62(3). The ruling reiterates that post-facto adjustments cannot substitute mandatory corporate approvals.
The ROC Kolkata held that possessing more than one Director Identification Number violates Section 155 of the Companies Act, attracting penalties under Section 159. Directors must ensure that only one valid DIN is maintained at all times.
The ROC Bangalore penalised a company and its directors after finding that the next Board Meeting was convened 87 days beyond the statutory limit under Section 173(1). The company had voluntarily admitted the default through a suo motu application.
ROC held that failure to file Form PAS-3 within 15 days of share allotment violated Section 42(8) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized for the 61-day delay in compliance.
The ROC Haryana held that failure to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a special resolution for issuance of CCDs constitutes a violation under Section 117(2). Companies must adhere to statutory timelines even when the default is subsequently rectified.
ROC Haryana held that mentioning an incorrect purpose in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. However, the penalty was reduced due to the company’s Small Company and Start-up status.
Although the show cause notice referred to the maximum penalty applicable for continuing contraventions, the adjudicating officer treated the lapse as a one-time offence. This resulted in a lower penalty under the Companies Act framework.
The ROC Haryana held that incorrectly stating the purpose of filing in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. Companies must ensure accuracy in MCA filings, as inadvertent mistakes can still result in penalties.
ROC held that omission of prescribed disclosures in the explanatory statement for a CCD issuance violated Section 62(1)(c) and Rule 13(2)(d). The company and its officers were penalized under Section 450 after admitting the default.
The Registrar of Companies penalized the company and its authorized signatory after an incorrect document was attached with Form AOC-4. The order held that filing defective statutory records constitutes a contravention despite subsequent rectification requests.
