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 held that securities cannot be allotted before dematerialising directors’ shareholding. A penalty was imposed desp...
Company Law : The authority penalized the company for issuing shares below the valuer-determined price, even though the shortfall was later reco...
Company Law : Delay in filing return of allotment under Section 42 resulted in penalties. However, reduced penalties were granted due to startup...
Company Law : The authority penalized premature utilization of funds raised through private placement in violation of Section 42(4). The ruling ...
Company Law : The case involved issuing a private placement offer before filing the required resolution. It was held that such non-compliance at...
The issue involved non-compliance with statutory requirements for maintaining board meeting minutes. The authority held that procedural lapses still attract penalties under Section 118.
The authority dropped penalty proceedings after finding that the company had already shifted its registered office and the error was unintentional. Timely compliance and lack of mala fide intent proved crucial.
ROC imposed penalty due to non-conduct of mandatory board meetings during FY 2019–20. The ruling confirms strict compliance requirements under Section 173 of the Companies Act.
The ROC imposed penalties for non-compliance with mandatory woman director requirements. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of Section 149(1) based on turnover criteria.
A prolonged violation of Independent Director requirements led to penalties on both the company and its officer. The ruling underscores consequences of continuous default under corporate law.
The issue involved non-compliance with Section 150(1) due to improper appointment of an independent director. The authority held the company and officer liable, emphasizing mandatory selection from the IICA databank.
The ROC imposed penalties for appointing an Independent Director not listed in the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance with eligibility requirements under Section 150(1).
The ROC penalized the company for not appointing an Independent Director from the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 150(1) of the Companies Act.
The authority penalized the company for delayed filing of MGT-6 beyond the prescribed timeline. It held that even a short delay constitutes a violation under Section 89(7).
The authority penalized the company for failing to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a resolution. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties under Section 117(2).
