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...
The order holds that non-filing of MGT-14 for approving financial statements violates Sections 117 and 179, attracting penalty under Section 450 with monetary fines on the company and directors.
The order addresses failure to disclose occupation details of allottees in statutory filings. The authority held this omission to be a violation of securities allotment rules, attracting penalty under the Companies Act.
The issue concerned late filing of Form MGT-14 for a special resolution. The authority held the delay violated Section 117(2) and imposed penalties on the company and its officers.
The issue was failure to provide full allottee particulars in PAS-3. The key takeaway is that missing PAN or email details can trigger penalties under Section 450.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of annual accounts. The authority held that such delay attracts residuary penalty despite subsequent compliance.
This matter examined consequences of not filing a mandatory Board Resolution. The authority held that later compliance does not erase liability for earlier default.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to maintain the required number of directors liable to retire by rotation violates Section 152(6)(a). A monetary penalty was imposed on the officer in default despite suo motu disclosure.
The case addressed failure to appoint a woman director within the statutory timeline. The authority held the company and its officers liable under the residuary penalty provision.
Missing mandatory allottee particulars in PAS-3 were held to violate Rule 14(6). The company and director were penalised under Section 450 despite prior rejection of NDH-4.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts. The key takeaway is that misunderstanding compliance requirements does not absolve liability under Section 450.
